I'm not a lawyer, but given the volume of long articles on legal industry websites when one searches for terms like "no-poach agreement legality", it appears this is not so cut and dry. I am sure that to some extent, it will also vary based on jurisdiction.
Do we really believe that the big shot lawyers at all of these places (remember, many household brands were parties) are so bad they would allow a contract that was pro se illegal to be entered into, or that the executives secretly fast-tracked these documents and bypassed counsel? To me, the situation sounds much grayer than some portray it.
This case was settled, not tried. We are left to speculate on what the outcomes and conclusions would've been had the settlement not proceeded.
It depends on the jurisdiction, sure. But in this case the jurisdiction was California, the most pro labor state in the US.
I don't believe their lawyers or the companies are incompetent. I believe that they were actively malicious.
They thought that the legal costs of getting caught and losing the lawsuit, or settling, would be less than following the law, so they actively chose to take the risk and break the law.
And it turns out, they were mostly correct about that. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be condemned for it.
This is backed up by all the statements that they made about "don't put this stuff in writing! ", ect. And the fact that they stopped engaging in these practices. (if they were doing nothing wrong, then they would continue, right?)
Do we really believe that the big shot lawyers at all of these places (remember, many household brands were parties) are so bad they would allow a contract that was pro se illegal to be entered into, or that the executives secretly fast-tracked these documents and bypassed counsel? To me, the situation sounds much grayer than some portray it.
This case was settled, not tried. We are left to speculate on what the outcomes and conclusions would've been had the settlement not proceeded.