Our Position on Non-Compete Agreements
“We believe in our people and want them to be successful here at Veeva
or wherever their careers take them.” – Peter Gassner, founder and CEO
Employee success is one of our three core values. We believe in our people and do what we can to make sure they learn, work with a great team, and build successful careers at Veeva or wherever they go.
The widespread misuse of non-compete agreements and overly broad confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements conflicts with our value of employee success. They restrict employees’ ability to pursue new opportunities and advance their careers.
About 30 million U.S. workers are impacted by non-competes. Many companies include these clauses in their standard terms of employment, realizing that most employees won’t read or understand the fine print. Employees often unknowingly sign contracts that could eventually be used against them as they pursue new job opportunities.
Employees should have the right to move freely between jobs, advance their careers, and improve their lives without fear of being sued by their former employers. We have taken legal action to fight these unfair practices that limit employees’ basic rights to work where they choose.
The free flow of talent and ideas has been a key contributing factor to Silicon Valley’s success and culture of innovation. The founding and growth of countless tech companies have been made possible, including Apple, Intel, Google, Salesforce, and Veeva.
At Veeva, we don’t ask employees to sign overly restrictive agreements and we will not let a current or past employer agreement prevent us from hiring a qualified candidate.
What can you do if you have a non-compete or other overly restrictive employee contract presented as part of an offer?
Break the cycle. Join a progressive company that does not require you to sign a non-compete or overly broad confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements and that will defend you against attempts to enforce your existing non-compete.
Don’t let the threat of a lawsuit derail your career. Most companies don’t take things that far, but a few may. The reality is that most non-compete clauses are abusive, overly broad, and not enforceable, even in the jurisdictions that allow them, and many confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses are equally over broad and abusive.
If you join Veeva, your responsibility is to return all data to your former employer and never share confidential information. If you do that, in the event your former employer pursues a claim, Veeva will provide for your full legal representation and help make the process as easy as possible. In the unlikely event a non-compete delays or restricts your work at Veeva, you will retain your position and your compensation will continue unaffected.
We are focused on building a special company that does the right thing by our customers and employees. Join us and don’t let a non-compete or overly broad confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement stand in your way.
Show your support for employee rights and the freedom for people to move between jobs.
- Bloomberg News: Veeva Turns the Tables in Fight Over Tech Hiring Barriers
- The Mercury News: Software Company Hopes Lawsuit Will Give U.S. Employees Freedom to Move
- Bloomberg Radio: Veeva in Fight Over Tech Hiring Barriers
- New York Times: The Unfreeing of American Workers
- Wall Street Journal: Why Non-compete Pacts Are Bad for Workers and the Economy
- Bloomberg Businessweek: If Silicon Valley Wants to Be Decent, It Should Give Up NDAs
- Harvard Business Review: How Noncompetes Stifle Performance
- Office of Economic Policy U.S. Department of the Treasury: Non-compete Contracts: Economic Effects and Policy Implications
“I’m thrilled to see broad action being taken to curb these unfair agreements. All workers should have the liberty to move between jobs and be free to compete. Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses can be as big a constraint as non-competes. Our research shows that these anti-competitive practices can hurt employee performance, reduce company innovation, and hinder the economy.” – Orly Lobel, professor of employment and labor law, University of San Diego
“Employees, employers, and economies can all suffer as a result of non-competes. The negative effects on wages, mobility, and job satisfaction can be substantial. In many, if not all, circumstances there are better ways to protect trade secrets than non-competes, which often just limit fair competition.” – J.J. Prescott, professor of law, University of Michigan
“Non-competes are meant to strike fear in employees and discourage competition. It’s clear that the free flow of ideas and employees from company to company can be a factor for new businesses and innovation. [Veeva’s] case could help limit practices that are clearly bad for employees and bad for the economy.” – Alan Hyde, distinguished professor of law, Rutgers University
“Our research shows that non-competes lower a person’s earnings power, not just at a point in time, but the negative impacts are seen throughout their career. Actions to limit the enforcement of employment practices that suppress growth and wages can be beneficial for workers.” – Mariko Sakakibara, professor of strategy, UCLA Anderson School of Management
“Under the law in most states, companies essentially have the power to dictate where employees can work and keep them locked in jobs. We are taking action because people should have the fundamental right to use their skills and experience to advance their careers as they choose without the threat of being sued.” – Peter Gassner, founder and CEO, Veeva Systems