What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job.
Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable.
Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school.
My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements.
What your lawyers said sounds believable. It has absolutely nothing to do with "right to work" laws, which are a particular legal concept that have to do with union fee requirements. A quick google search suggests that there was a South Carolina supreme court ruling about noncompetes that addresses "the right of a person to use his talents to earn a living", so I can see what your confusion might stem from, but this is distinct from "right to work", which is a sort of political/legal shorthand for something specific to union contracts.
Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable.
Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school.
My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements.
IANAL