Been working for a company through a recruiting firm that I believe was making loads of money off me. I had asked the recruiting company for more money, because I know they have room but I believe they went to the client and said I wanted more money. Now, the client decided to end my contract. I know in my contract with the recruiting company, they have a line like I can’t get hired directly from the client for one year or something, but is there any way around it, since they decided to bring up the money thing to the client which was not my intention!

  • Also such contracts sometimes only forbid active job offerings by the client, but do not forbid hiring if you apply for a public job offering. Therefore you could ask the client first.
    – Chris
    Apr 13, 2019 at 15:58
  • 1
    I know of a case where the manager fired the contractors... Then they had to employ them 'cos they did not have the skills... Guess who got hired at more money :) Guess which manager left shortly after...
    – Solar Mike
    Apr 13, 2019 at 16:01
  • You could always ignore the terms of your contract and gamble that you don't get sued. (Not a serious suggestion.)
    – Blrfl
    Apr 13, 2019 at 16:11
  • 2
    A "recruiting firm" normally means a company that connects a job seeker with a firm that wants to hire, and takes a few for making the connection. I think what you have is a contracting firm. Apr 13, 2019 at 16:31

2 Answers 2


I've 'bought' myself out of an agency in the past.

I was employed as a third party contractor for a company, via an agency. The company decided it wanted to stop using contractors and offered to take us all as permanent employees. There was a clause in my contract saying that I couldn't work for the company without the agency's consent. A price was negotiated, the agency was paid and I became a permie at the company.

It's all about the money. Since your job with the company has finished, the agency may not put too high a price on letting you go.

  • Just curious, did you pay for it yourself or did the company pay for it? And was it an obscene amount?
    – solarflare
    Apr 15, 2019 at 4:52
  • 3
    @solarflare The amount was high but not as much as it could have been since the agency wasn't going to have any more contract fees whatever happened. It was a choice between nothing at all, or a one-off payment. I managed to negotiate it into my employment package with the company so I guess, really, they bought me out Apr 15, 2019 at 9:28

Non compete clauses are often unenforceable.
You don't mention where you live but for example in NC (USA) they can be enforced, under certain circumstances (though they are narrow I'm told).

Unless you just want to let it go, your least expensive path would be to talk to someone who specializes in employment law in your area (<$500).
In the US employment law is mostly based on the state you live in - in case that helps.

  • 1
    There is also the moral issue that you freely agreed to the contract, which is worth mentioning as a comment. Apr 16, 2019 at 13:12
  • 1
    What about the other side of the contract, between the employer and agency? Could the employer be liable for a penalty if they employ someone previously employed via the agency.
    – thelem
    Apr 16, 2019 at 13:34
  • @J.ChrisCompton Agreeing to such a contract is not always 'free'. For example a few years ago, where I worked all contracting firms used to have this as part of the regular contract, so not agreeing to this would mean being unable to work as a consultant. Eventually it turned out to be unenforceable in my area so the companies are slowly removing this clause.
    – Blub
    Apr 16, 2019 at 14:02
  • @thelem Depends on the contract that they agreed to. If I had to guess... probably. They are unlikely to pursue this in a court, more likely to use it to ask/bargain for another sweetened contractor position or some small sum (where "small" = less than what they would owe). Apr 16, 2019 at 17:40
  • 1
    @Blub Well... that is why I put it in the comments instead of the answer. Morally one can argue that (1) you "didn't freely agree" because you had no choice. Others would respond that (2) you always have a choice... even with a gun to your head, you have a choice... that doesn't mean you have a good choice but they'd say you always have a choice. You seem to be in camp #1, which I understand and I'm not passing judgement on you. Apr 16, 2019 at 17:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .