So he claims: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.64850/gov.uscourts.arwd.64850.12.1.pdf
Execs also lie about severance: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.64850/gov.uscourts.arwd.64850.3.0.pdf
13 replies (most recent on top)
Kinda torn on this one.. there are allegations in the brief but there is no way to substantiate the claims of the suit without inside information or the motion to dismiss filed by Fiserv
@knv+1eX3oZv5 this board has evolved and taken on additional topics, and I am okay with it. The great thing is that I you do not like the posts and content, no one is forcing you to visit the board and read the posts.
When you take a big severance package you have to sign a no compete, even if you are laid off.
What is amazing is they’re trying to enforce a non-compete after firing him. I could understand it if he quit for a competitor on his own.
Don't assume a company won't follow through on a non-compete, even if they know not much may come of it in the long run. Companies have lawyers on staff, so they're already paying for the resources. It may end in up as nothing, but they can certainly make an ex-employee's life h.ll for awhile.
If I were in a position higher than Sr. Director, I'd worry about it. Otherwise, you can ignore it, because it would cost Fiserv more to pursue than they would ever retrieve, and many states expressly prohibit enforcing an NDA for non-executives.
I left Fiserv as an engineer and I'm working for a direct (and far superior) competitor. Frank can come get me if he thinks he can, but one phone call to my state's labor board will not only shut him up, but net me a massive chunk of money in fines levied against Fiserv.
Got-to-love California's complete ban on non-competes.
Non competes are real if you’ve signed one don’t take it lightly. They are legal documents.
Fiserv Betrayed.. hardly.. dozens have left Fiserv for competitors.. Unless he was compensated these non competes agreements are BS.. hope he wins a nice judgement.
As for Arkansas it is the company changing the venue from Arkansas the employees home state to companies venue.
The opposite if you read the post an employee was trying to work for a competitor and the ceo of the competitor told the employee he was in violation of his non-compete with Fiserv.
Personally, I find the fact that the company may have betrayed an employee to be noteworthy. Certainly more relevant than many things frequently posted on this site.
What in the world does this have to do with layoffs?