Non-Compete & Non-Solicitation in California - Legal Counsel Guides 8

This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the enforceability and implications of non-solicitation and non-compete clauses under California law. It incorporates recent legislative updates, judicial interpretations, and specific precedents to offer detailed guidance on navigating these legal issues. (not a legal advice, educational purposes only).

I. Non-Compete Clauses in California

A. General Prohibition

Under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, non-compete clauses are generally void and unenforceable. This statute reflects California's strong public policy favoring open competition and employee mobility. Specifically, Section 16600 states, "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

B. Legislative Updates

As of January 1, 2024, Section 16600.5 has been codified, reinforcing the prohibition of non-compete agreements in California. Key provisions include:

1. Prohibition on Enforcement: Employers cannot enforce non-compete clauses even if the employment contract was signed and employment occurred outside California.
2. Retroactive Invalidation: Non-compete agreements are invalid retroactively.
3. Civil Violations: Employers who violate Section 16600 can face civil penalties. Affected employees can seek injunctive relief and damages.
4. Attorney's Fees: Employees who prevail in such actions are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

C. Exceptions to the General Rule

California recognizes three primary exceptions where non-compete clauses may be enforceable:

1. Sale of Business (Section 16601): Non-compete clauses can be enforced when they are part of the sale of a business, provided they are limited to a specific geographic area.
2. Dissolution of Partnership (Section 16602): Partners may agree not to compete within a specific geographic area upon the dissolution of the partnership.
3. Termination of Membership in LLC (Section 16602.5): Members of a limited liability company may agree not to compete in a specific geographic area upon termination of their membership.

D. Judicial Precedents

California courts have consistently invalidated non-compete agreements that do not fall within the statutory exceptions. Notable cases include:

• Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008): The California Supreme Court held that non-compete clauses are void under Section 16600 unless they fall within a statutory exception.
• Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020): The court reaffirmed that Section 16600 prohibits agreements that restrain an individual from engaging in lawful business practices unless they meet the specific exceptions outlined in the statute.

II. Non-Solicitation Clauses in California

A. Legal Landscape

While non-solicitation clauses do not face an outright ban like non-compete clauses, they are subject to scrutiny under Section 16600. California courts generally interpret non-solicitation clauses in light of the state’s strong public policy favoring employee mobility and competition.

B. Enforceability Criteria

Non-solicitation clauses may be enforceable if they:

1. Correspond with the statutory exemptions.
2. Protect Trade Secrets: Clauses that protect legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets, may be enforceable.

C. Judicial Interpretation

California courts have upheld non-solicitation agreements in limited circumstances where they are necessary to protect trade secrets or other proprietary information. However, broad non-solicitation agreements that restrict an individual's ability to engage in their profession are likely to be invalidated. Notable cases include:

• Loral Corp. v. Moyes (1985): The court upheld a non-solicitation agreement as it was narrowly tailored to protect the employer’s trade secrets.
• AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018): The court struck down a non-solicitation clause that was deemed overly broad and not necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

III. Legal Remedies and Strategies

A. Promissory Estoppel

If a party made promises not to compete or solicit, and the other party relied on these promises to their detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may apply to enforce the promises.

B. Injunctive Relief

In cases where an employee or former Officer solicits clients or employees in violation of a legitimate non-solicitation clause, the affected party can seek injunctive relief. This remedy requires demonstrating a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

C. Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Leff v. Gunter)

Former employees or Officers who breach their fiduciary duties by soliciting clients or using confidential information may be liable for damages. California law allows recovery for losses incurred due to such breaches.

• Duty of Loyalty
• Duty of Care
• Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

D. Protection of Trade Secrets

The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) provide robust protections against the misappropriation of trade secrets. Remedies include injunctive relief and damages.

E. Accounting for Profits

If an individual profits from the breach of fiduciary duties or misappropriation of trade secrets, the affected party can demand an accounting of profits to ensure that the wrongdoer does not benefit from their misconduct.

F. Constructive Trust

Courts may impose a constructive trust on any benefits or assets acquired through the breach of fiduciary duties or misappropriation of trade secrets, ensuring that these are returned to the rightful owner.

G. Declaratory Relief

This remedy can clarify the rights and obligations under any disputed contracts or agreements, particularly regarding non-compete or non-solicitation clauses.

H. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

If an individual induces clients or employees to breach their contracts with the affected party, the latter can file a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.

I. Defamation

If false statements made by a former employee or Officer damage the company’s reputation or business, a defamation claim may be pursued, provided that the falsehood and resulting harm can be proven.

J. Unfair Competition

Under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), actions that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent can be challenged. This includes the use of confidential information obtained through improper means or deceptive practices aimed at harming the business.

Conclusion

California's legal framework strongly favors employee mobility and competition, rendering most non-compete clauses void. Non-solicitation clauses are subject to strict scrutiny and are only enforceable under specific conditions, primarily to protect trade secrets. Employers and businesses must carefully craft these clauses to align with California law and protect their legitimate business interests without violating statutory prohibitions.

Subscribe to my other thematic newsletters:

M&A Guide: https://www.dhirubhai.net/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7128030297245241344

Fundraising Agreements: https://www.dhirubhai.net/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7133401820353208321