|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link EDWARDS V. ARTHUR ANDERSEN: NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS AND GENERAL RELEASES.Shaw Valenza LLP - August 28, 2008 California law is tough on agreements that restrain an individual from engaging in his or her profession, trade or business. The only statutory exceptions to this strict rule are non-competition agreements associated with certain business sales transactions and dissolution of partnerships. There are common law restrictions as well. For example, employees usually cannot directly compete with a current employer where doing so would constitute a conflict of interest. Additionally, employees may be restricted from certain post-termination activities to protect the former employer’s trade secrets. Employers also may use financial disincentives to dissuade employees from leaving, such as requiring repayment of training costs, and bonuses that require employment on a certain date. Report Link California Update — Noncompetition Agreements Held Unenforceable.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - August 19, 2008 In its long-awaited decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, the California Supreme Court ruled on August 7, 2008 that California employers cannot enforce agreements limiting competition by former employees, except within very narrow statutory exceptions. The Court established this bright-line rule by interpreting broadly California Business and Professions Code section 16600, which prohibits contracts by which anyone is “restrained” from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business. The Court held that Section 16600 prohibits not only broad post-employment noncompetes, but also “narrow restraints” on competition, such as agreements not to solicit clients of a former employer. Report Link The Mixed Bag of Edwards v. Arthur Anderson: Narrow Restraints in Non-Competition Agreements Are Not Allowed, Indemnity Rights Are Unwaivable But Broad Releases of "Any and All Claims" Are Valid.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 19, 2008 The California Supreme Court's recent opinion in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen L.L.P., S147190 (Aug. 7, 2008), is a turning point for two distinct bodies of law surrounding the validity of post-employment restrictions, such as covenants not to compete, and the validity of broad, employment-related releases in light of nonwaivable statutory rights. Report Link California - California Supreme Court Invalidates Non-Compete Agreement.Ogletree Deakins - August 19, 2008 In a unanimous decision, the state’s highest court recently ruled that a noncompetition agreement entered into between an employer and one of its former employees is unenforceable under California law. In so doing, the California Supreme Court upheld a longstanding state law restricting employers from using such agreements to restrain employees’ practice of their professions. Report Link California Supreme Court Rules On Non-compete Agreements And On General Releases.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - August 12, 2008 The California Supreme Court recently handed down a long-awaited and significant decision addressing the nature and scope of non-competition agreements in California. The ruling also addressed the enforceability of contract provisions requiring employees to release "any and all" claims. The case has important consequences for California employers. Report Link California Supreme Court Rejects Narrow-Restraint Exception to Noncompetition Agreements and Prohibits Contractual Releases of Nonwaivable Statutory Protections.Baker Hostetler LLP - August 12, 2008 The California Supreme Court has rejected the "narrow-restraint" exception to California's general prohibition on noncompetition agreements, maintaining that all noncompete restrictions must comply with the express terms of California Business & Professions Code section 16000, et seq. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008 S147190). The narrow restraint exception which had been recognized by some federal courts in California, permitted limited restrictions if the employee was still permitted to compete in "a substantial portion of the market." The court also held that a contractual provision which releases "any and all claims" by an employee does not include non-waivable statutory protections. Report Link California Supreme Court Finds Post-Employment Nonsolicitation Agreements Unenforceable.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 08, 2008 The California Supreme Court has ruled that post-employment restrictions on an individual’s ability to solicit a former employer’s customers are invalid under Section 16600 of California’s Business and Professions Code, which bans any restriction on the right to pursue a profession, trade or business, unless they fall within the statutory exception for the sale of a business. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. BC 294853 (Cal. Aug. 7, 2008). The long-awaited decision from California’s highest state court rejects the “narrow restraint” exception to Section 16600 that had been applied by some federal courts in California. Report Link California Employment Spotlight -- Protecting the Crown Jewels: Permissible Covenants Not to Compete For California Employees (pdf).Hogan & Hartson LLP - October 31, 2007 While California’s strong public policy against restraints on trade makes it somewhat difficult for employers to protect their business goodwill from wandering employees and vying competitors, there are ways around the prohibitions. This update explores some of the lesser-known methods for protecting against competition. Report Link Court Refuses To Enforce Overbroad Contractual Provision Penalizing Company For Hiring Consultant’s Employees (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2007 In VL Systems, Inc. v. Unisen, Inc., the California Court of Appeal refused to enforce a contractual provision that precluded a company from hiring employees away from a consulting firm it had hired. Report Link California and Ninth Circuit Competitors Beware -- Hiring Away Competitor's Employees Can Create Exposure for Interference With Contract Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 08, 2007 Competitors are generally free to pursue the at-will employees of other companies, provided they avoid the misappropriation of trade secrets or other unlawful conduct. Report Link California Court Confirms Arbitration Award Enforcing Non-Compete Agreement (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - July 11, 2005 A California Court of Appeal recently handed employers a major victory in the areas of noncompetition, choice of law, and arbitration in its decision in Jones v. Humanscale Corporation. The decision issued on Friday, June 17, involved an employer’s attempt to specify in its employment contracts with its employees that the law of its home state, New Jersey, would control instead of that of California. The employment contract also provided for arbitration through the American Arbitration Association and specified that any dispute would be heard in New Jersey.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 11NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds