Meritas Capability Webinar - California’s Prohibition Against Non-Compete Agreements (B&P Code § 16600), the Protection of Trade Secrets and the Practical Relationship Between the Two
Despite California’s general hostility towards post-termination restrictive covenants, the California Court of Appeal, in a recently published opinion, Blue Mountain Enters., LLC v. Owen, 74 Cal.App.5th 537 (1st Dist. Jan....more
The Ninth Circuit recently asked the California Supreme Court to provide it with guidance concerning certain types of non-compete provisions that could have huge ramifications for California’s business environment. In...more
Many employers have offices in multiple states, but want to have one form of employee agreement prohibiting solicitation of employees and customers. Since some state laws, namely California, may be too different to reconcile...more
California’s prohibition against contracts that restrain a person’s ability to engage in a lawful business, profession, or trade is well-established and well-known. Ten years ago, in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44...more
This month’s key employment law cases address nonsolicitation provisions and arbitration agreements. AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577 (2018) Summary:...more
California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 is particularly tough on covenants not to compete declaring, with certain exceptions, "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession...more
A federal appeals court recently ruled that an overbroad “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement with a former employee can be an unlawful restraint of trade under California law. In Golden v. California Emergency...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently broadened California's already expansive interest in promoting employee mobility by voiding any contract provision imposing a meaningful obstacle to a California resident's ability...more