Yeah, something similar was mentioned in the article. If this wasn't legal, they could just fire you, then offer to hire you under the new terms the next day.
I'd argue that is still fundamentally different than just requiring the signature to keep your job. Getting laid off has different consequences than quitting.
I realize most states disagree with me, but I think it's absurd. If at will employment is so meaningless that it's no different from being fired, it shouldn't even be consideration in the first place. These courts are treating at will employment as a meaningless promise in one scenario, but as having some value in another.
Getting laid off has different consequences than quitting.
Yes, the first thing I wondered about this would be whether it's permissible to describe being handed the noncompete with an order to sign it or leave as termination with zero notice.
Some companies routinely do this as part of an acquisition. One former employer started doing it right after the acquisition of which I was a part, when they didn't do it that way and subsequently found that the employee agreements they'd rammed down our throats weren't worth the paper they were written on.
