All posts
EmploymentApril 5, 2026·6 min read

Employment contracts and the California problem

Your standard employment template probably has a non-compete. In half the US, that clause is now unenforceable - and it may void more than itself.

By The ailegaldesk.pro team

The single most common mistake in DIY employment contracts is a non-compete clause copy-pasted from a national template. In California, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Dakota - and, at the federal level, in the direction the FTC has been moving - that clause is void, and in some states, the mere fact that you tried to enforce it is actionable.

What the template does wrong

  • Applies a national non-compete without state-by-state gating.
  • Bundles non-compete with non-solicit and confidentiality in one paragraph, so a court that strikes the non-compete may take the neighbors with it.
  • Uses IP assignment language without the whistleblower notice required by the US Defend Trade Secrets Act.

The clean structure

1. Confidentiality - always enforceable. Written broadly, survives termination, no state carve-outs needed.

2. IP assignment - with prior-inventions carve-out and DTSA notice. Every state.

3. Non-solicitation - 12 months, defined by "material contact" or a list. Enforceable almost everywhere with reasonable scope.

4. Non-competition - only where enforceable, and only with consideration. Gated by state.

Keep the four clauses in separate sections. If a court strikes one, the others survive.

The at-will paragraph matters more than you think

At-will language protects the employer's ability to terminate without cause. In fixed-term contracts, spell out termination-for-cause with numbered categories. The specificity is what protects the employer if litigation follows.

Draft one with the Employment Contract tool.

Keep reading