Non-competes are becoming more common these days, at jobs far below the executive level or where there are trade secrets involved.
https://econofact.org/the-chilling-effect-of-non-compete-agreements
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/27/noncompete-clauses-jobs-workplace/348384001/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clauses-increasingly-pop-up-in-array-of-jobs.html
Most employers would not go to court over it.
What I have seen usually happens is the ex-employer would contact the current employer if they suspect there is a breach, because companies have deep pockets, not individuals.
As an example, a banker took his clients info to a new bank and we had evidence of it. The ex-employer contacted the new employer threatened law suit unless the new employer fired the banker, and the new employer did.
Another example, an ex-employer accused an ex-employee took their software to a new employer. The ex-employer threatened law suit. The new employer thought the ex-employer’s claim was without merit. They went to court and the ex-employer lost.
It is why most new employers would review an applicant’s previous employment agreement before an offer is made. The focus is generally on non-solicitation and possible conflict of interest. Non-compete is usually for people in sales/marketing, and it is limited in scope (it can’t be you are not allowed to work in insurance, it would need to be “you can’t sale/market to customers you have worked with for next X period.”)
In general, in California non-compete agreements are unenforceable however many CA companies have non-solicitation agreements that have some limited enforceability.
https://econofact.org/the-chilling-effect-of-non-compete-agreements says the following:
I.e. employee non-competes are proliferating to parts of the labor market where it is unlikely that trade secrets or poaching a customer base are a significant concern (even then, non-disclosure and non-use of trade secrets and customer lists agreements can be used in places where non-competes are clearly non-enforceable, like in California). Basically, they are a means by which employers increase power over employees, with the implied threat of a lawsuit discouraging employees from seeking better employment. The fact that employers often write overly broad ones that end up being non-enforceable in court indicates that they know that many employees do not know enough or do not have the money to fight it out in court.
Interesting discussion on non-competes. As there is currently a low unemployment rate where job-seekers have the power (especially in certain industries and/or levels), it makes sense to try to negotiate removal of a non-compete.
FWIW, a person I worked with who was employed at a large California pharma/biotech company, lost his non-compete case big time when he went to a competing company. He not only could not continue working at his new job, he had to pay $ damages on top of his expensive lawyer’s fees. Clearly that California non-compete was written tightly enough that it stood (this was also about 10 years ago, so maybe Cal law is now different too)
Employers throw all sorts of crap in their form contracts/on boarding paperwork that are not enforceable. The lower your position (and certainly for entry level positions) the less likely that a uncompensated non-compete is enforceable. Confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions are a different matter because you are appropriating the IP (whether it is trade secrets, customer lists, fellow employee contacts) of your former employer for your own benefit. Back in my M&A days, our standard advice to ensure enforceability of non-competes was to pay some amount during that period, often in the nature of retaining the employee as a “consultant”. The non-competes were also usually only required of key personnel. As to entry level employees, if you see a non-compete clause as part of an orientation package paperwork or part of a formal employment contract, I’d just write a line through any post employment non-compete unless it was tied to some form of payment. Employers will not balk at that. If they do, beware of the employer in terms of how likely they will treat employees.