Employment Law Commentary - Volume 21, No. 10 October 2009

more+
less-

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP: One Year Later

Introduction

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, unanimously holding that Business & Professions Code section 16600 invalidated a provision in Edwards’s employment agreement that restricted him from serving customers and competing with Arthur Andersen following the termination of his employment.1 The Supreme Court rejected the “narrow restraint” exception2 that the Ninth Circuit and federal courts had previously embraced, and instead held that a provision prohibiting solicitation of customers that even “partially” or “narrowly” restricts an employee’s ability to practice the employee’s trade or profession is prohibited.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Business Torts Updates, General Business Updates, Labor & Employment Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Morrison & Foerster is an international firm with more than 1,000 lawyers across 15 offices in the... View Profile »


Follow Morrison & Foerster LLP:

Reporters on Deadline