Insights
Publications

California Supreme Court Narrows Enforceability Of Non-Solicitation And Effect Of Release Clauses

8/12/2008 Articles

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a decision with two important effects on employee contracts.  First, the Court rejected a theory that non-solicitation clauses might be acceptable under California law if narrow enough to allow continuation of the employee's profession.  Second, the Court held that a provision in which the employee releases "any and all" claims against the employer will not release statutory rights to expense reimbursements.

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, Case No. S147190, as a condition of employment as a tax manager, Raymond Edwards signed an agreement not to solicit certain clients and employees of his employer, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), for a period of 12 to 18 months after leaving employment.  When Andersen wound-down its business following its Enron-related indictment, the majority of partners in Edward's group moved to HSBC USA, Inc.  As a condition of waiving Edwards' non-solicitation agreement, and thereby allowing Edwards to work for HSBC, Andersen required that Edwards sign a general release of claims against Andersen including "any and all" claims arising from employment with Andersen.   Edwards refused to sign the release based upon his belief that (1) the non-solicitation clause was void under California law, and (2) the release purported to preclude him from seeking reimbursement for any expenses that might arise if he were sued for actions taken while working for Andersen. 

When HSBC refused to hire Edwards because he had not obtained waiver of his non-solicitation clause, Edwards sued Andersen and HSBC for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and anticompetitive business practices.  The trial court dismissed Edwards' claim on the grounds that prohibition against soliciting Andersen clients did not preclude Edwards from pursuing his profession.  This holding had relied upon several opinions from the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that California law allowed competition restrictions that were so narrow that they allowed the employee to continue engaging in his profession.

The California Supreme Court rejected this theory, explaining that California Business and Profession Code §16600 et seq. prohibit non-competition agreements that "restrain" an employee in the exercise of his profession except in the case of the sale or dissolution of corporations, partnerships, and limited liability corporations.  The Court observed that these statutes contained no exception for narrowness.  Because Andersen's agreement prevented Edwards from performing work for clients he had worked for in his region, it restricted his ability to practice his profession, and was therefore invalid under the California statutes.  The Court, however, expressly reserved judgment on other California Court of Appeals opinions that competition restrictions may be justified to protect the employer's trade secrets.

On the other hand, the California Supreme Court held that the release of "any and all" claims against Andersen that HSBC had required its new employees to sign was permissible.  The Court explained that the release could not release any right to claim indemnification from expenses incurred as a result his work for Andersen, since that statutory right was not waivable.  The Court inferred that the release was not intended to affect non-waivable rights and was thus legal.

As a result of this decision, employers should be careful about requiring non-solicitation or non-competition agreements as a condition of employment or any benefit of employment.  Any such agreements should be discussed with counsel.  Employers should also assure that any release agreements proffered at the end of employment include an acknowledgment that the employee has already received all non-waivable benefits as of the date of signature, including wages or expenses.

Firm Highlights

News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Symposium Recordings & Articles

Employers Face Significant New Requirements for Severance Agreements and Non-Competes  (Recording) Conducting Effective, Defensible Investigations (With Lessons Learned from Summary Judgment & Trial)  (Recording) California Employment Law Updates: What to Look Out for in...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Update for Nonprofits With Holly Sutton

Welcome to  EO Radio Show - Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . Charities, foundations, and their founders often request help addressing employment practices and compliance questions. In this episode, host Cynthia Rowland is joined by Holly...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Workplace Violence Prevention Law

California has introduced a new requirement compelling most employers to implement a workplace violence prevention policy by July 1, 2024. The implications of this law are significant, prompting the need for human resource executives...

Read More
Publication

Navigating Cannabis in the Workplace: A Guide for California Corporations

The landscape surrounding cannabis in the workplace is rapidly evolving, posing challenges for California corporations and businesses to establish effective policies and procedures. As the use of cannabis, both medical and recreational, becomes more...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's New Rebuttable Presumption Law

The ever-evolving landscape of employment laws in California has introduced a notable change with the implementation of a new law that establishes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation in some circumstances. This law, which took...

Read More
Publication

Important Changes and the Impact of California Industry-Specific Minimum Wage Laws

In the ever-evolving landscape of California labor laws, the minimum wage has once again taken center stage. With the recent state-wide increase to $16 per hour, the Golden State continues to lead the nation...

Read More
News

Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action

Kelly Matayoshi was quoted in the article "Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action" in the Bar Association of San Francisco's fall issue of  San Francisco Attorney Magazine . Read...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Evolving Legal Landscape Governing Leaves of Absence

California’s employment laws are no stranger to change, and recent years have witnessed the introduction or modification of various protected leaves by employees. In this article, we will delve into three significant leave categories...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Welcomes Benjamin Buchwalter to Growing Employment Group

Read More