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

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
News

52 Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021

Read More
Publication

7 Tips for Creating a COVID-19 Essential Business Travel Policy

As states are relaxing COVID-19-related restrictions, employers should remain cautious about business travel. California’s public health orders still limit travel to an “urgent matter” or that which is “essential to your permitted work.” Given...

Read More
Publication

The Election Season Is Upon Us: Guidance for Managing Political Expression in the California Workplace

In a year of extraordinary events, this election has been more divisive and controversial than any other in recent history. Many employers are grappling with how they should manage political expression in the workplace...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal

Farella's Nonprofit Education Series features Rebecca Stephens and Jaya Bajaj discussing "Employment Law Updates for Nonprofits in the New Normal." Nonprofit organizations are subject to both state and federal employment laws and regulations. The...

Read More
Publication

Guidance on Directive to Defer Payroll Tax Obligations Leaves Unanswered Questions

On August 8, 2020, the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the deferment of certain payroll tax withholding, depositing, and payment obligations otherwise incurred on wages and compensation paid between September...

Read More
Publication

California Expands Family and Medical Leave Law to Cover Small Employers

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed SB 1383, which expands employees’ leave entitlements under California’s Family Rights Act and New Parent Leave Act. Effective January 1, 2021, these leave provisions will apply to employers with...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
Publication

Reopening Wine Businesses: Employee and Consumer Data Privacy

Farella's Wine Industry Education Series features Nate Garhart and Jaya Bajaj discussing "Reopening Wine Businesses: Employee and Consumer Data Privacy." The shelter-in-place orders prevented in-person tastings from happening, throwing a curve ball to the wine...

Read More
Publication

Employment Laws: Understanding Your Rights and Obligations as a Cannabis Employer

Farella's Cannabis Industry Education Series features Rebecca Stephens discussing "Employment Laws: Understanding Your Rights and Obligations as a Cannabis Employer." Cannabis businesses are subject to both state and federal employment laws and regulations. The past few...

Read More