California non compete and trade secrets

Vondran Legal® Trade Secret Insights

Legal Issue: Understanding California B&P 16600 and Employee Mobility: What You Need to Know 

Employee mobility is a crucial aspect of California’s economic landscape. California Business and Professions Code (B&P) 16600 plays a pivotal role in shaping the state’s policies regarding non-compete agreements and employee freedom. This blog delves into the intricacies of B&P 16600, explores relevant case law, and provides practical examples to illustrate the key concepts. 

What is California B&P 16600? 

California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 states: 

“Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” 

In simple terms, B&P 16600 generally prohibits non-compete agreements that restrict employees from working in their chosen profession or trade. This statute is a reflection of California’s strong public policy favoring open competition and the ability of individuals to pursue their livelihood without undue restrictions. 

Key Terms Defined 

• Non-Compete Agreement: A clause in a contract that restricts an employee from working in a similar profession or trade within a certain geographic area and time period after leaving a job. 

• Void: A term used to describe a contract or clause that has no legal effect and cannot be enforced. 

• Restraint of Trade: Any activity that interferes with free competition in a market. 

• Public Policy: Fundamental principles that guide the laws and regulations, reflecting the collective values and interests of the public. 

Historical Context and Public Policy 

California has a long-standing public policy favoring open competition and employee mobility. The state’s strong stance against non-compete agreements is rooted in the belief that such restrictions stifle innovation, limit employee freedom, and harm the economy. This policy is evident in B&P 16600, which broadly invalidates agreements that restrain individuals from engaging in their profession. 

The origin of this policy can be traced back to the early 19th century when courts began to view restraints on trade with skepticism. The rationale was that restricting an individual’s ability to work not only hampers their personal economic freedom but also negatively impacts the overall market by reducing competition and innovation. 

Exceptions to B&P 16600 

While B&P 16600 generally invalidates non-compete agreements, there are notable exceptions: 

1. Sale of a Business: Under B&P 16601, non-compete clauses can be enforced in the context of the sale of a business, where the seller agrees not to compete with the buyer within a specified geographic area. This exception recognizes the legitimate interest of the buyer in protecting the goodwill and value of the purchased business. 

2. Dissolution of a Partnership: B&P 16602 allows non-compete agreements in situations involving the dissolution of a partnership. This provision ensures that former partners do not immediately compete against each other, protecting the interests of the remaining partners and the stability of the business. 

3. Dissolution of a Limited Liability Company (LLC): Similarly, B&P 16602.5 permits non-compete agreements during the dissolution of an LLC. This exception serves the same purpose as in the dissolution of a partnership, safeguarding the business interests of the remaining members. 

Case Law Illustrating B&P 16600 

Understanding how courts interpret and enforce B&P 16600 is essential for comprehending its impact on employee mobility. Here are some landmark cases: 

1. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008): This case reaffirmed California’s prohibition on non-compete agreements. Raymond Edwards, an employee of Arthur Andersen, refused to sign a non-compete agreement as part of his termination agreement. The California Supreme Court held that the non-compete clause was void under B&P 16600, emphasizing the state’s strong policy against restraints on trade. 

• Significance: This ruling clarified that non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable in California, solidifying the state’s stance on promoting employee mobility and free competition. 

2. Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (2015): In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied B&P 16600 to a settlement agreement that included a restrictive covenant. The court held that even in settlement agreements, non-compete clauses are generally unenforceable under California law. 

• Significance: This case extended the application of B&P 16600 to various contractual contexts, including settlement agreements, further reinforcing the broad scope of the statute. 

3. AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018): The California Court of Appeal struck down a non-solicitation clause that restricted former employees from soliciting their previous employer’s employees. The court ruled that such clauses violated B&P 16600, reinforcing the statute’s broad application. 

• Significance: This decision highlighted that non-solicitation clauses, which are often used as a workaround to non-compete agreements, are also scrutinized under B&P 16600. 

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees 

The enforcement of B&P 16600 has significant implications for both employers and employees in California. 

1. For Employers: 

• Hiring Flexibility: Employers can benefit from a larger talent pool, as employees are not restricted by non-compete agreements. This can lead to more dynamic and innovative teams. 

• Crafting Agreements: Employers must carefully draft employment agreements to comply with B&P 16600. Alternative clauses, such as confidentiality agreements and trade secret protections, can be used to safeguard business interests without violating the statute. 

• Confidentiality Agreements: These agreements focus on protecting sensitive information without restricting an employee’s future employment opportunities. 

• Trade Secret Protections: Employers can use these clauses to protect proprietary information and processes without imposing broad employment restrictions. 

2. For Employees: 

• Job Mobility: Employees enjoy greater freedom to change jobs and pursue new opportunities without fear of legal repercussions from non-compete agreements. This enhances career growth and development. 

• Negotiation Power: Understanding their rights under B&P 16600 empowers employees to negotiate better terms when joining or leaving a company. Knowledge of these rights ensures that employees are not unduly restricted by invalid contractual clauses. 

Examples to Illustrate Concepts 

To better understand the impact of B&P 16600, consider the following examples: 

1. Tech Industry: 

• Scenario: Jane, a software engineer at Company A, receives a job offer from Company B, a competitor. Company A asks Jane to sign a non-compete agreement that prohibits her from working for any competitor for two years. 

• Outcome: Under B&P 16600, the non-compete agreement is void. Jane can accept the job offer from Company B without legal restrictions. 

• Explanation: This example illustrates how B&P 16600 protects employees in the tech industry, where mobility and innovation are crucial. 

2. Sales Industry: 

• Scenario: John, a top salesperson at Company X, leaves to start his own business. Company X tries to enforce a non-compete clause in John’s employment contract, preventing him from starting a similar business in the same region. 

• Outcome: The non-compete clause is unenforceable under B&P 16600. John is free to start his own business without violating any contractual obligations. 

• Explanation: This example demonstrates how B&P 16600 fosters entrepreneurship and economic growth by allowing individuals to pursue new business opportunities. 

3. Healthcare Industry: 

• Scenario: A group of doctors form a partnership and later decide to dissolve it. The partnership agreement includes a non-compete clause restricting the doctors from practicing within a certain radius. 

• Outcome: Under B&P 16602, the non-compete clause is enforceable as it falls under the dissolution of a partnership exception. 

• Explanation: This example highlights one of the exceptions to B&P 16600, showing how certain non-compete clauses can be valid in specific contexts. 

Drafting Employment Agreements Post-B&P 16600 

Given the restrictions imposed by B&P 16600, employers must be strategic in drafting employment agreements to protect their interests while complying with the law. Here are some best practices: 

1. Focus on Confidentiality: Include strong confidentiality clauses to protect sensitive information without restricting employee mobility. 

• Example: “Employee agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information and trade secrets of the company, both during and after their employment.” 

2. Use Non-Solicitation Clauses with Caution: While non-solicitation clauses can sometimes be enforceable, they must be narrowly tailored and cannot broadly restrict employee mobility. 

• Example: “Employee agrees not to solicit the company’s clients for a period of six months following the termination of employment, provided that this clause does not prevent the employee from engaging in lawful employment with a competitor.” 

3. Define Trade Secrets Clearly: Ensure that trade secret protections are clearly defined and justified, focusing on specific information that gives the company a competitive advantage. 

• Example: “Trade secrets include but are not limited to customer lists, pricing strategies, and proprietary software algorithms.” 

4. Consider Geographic and Temporal Limits: When drafting any restrictive covenants, ensure that they are reasonable in terms of geographic scope and duration to increase the likelihood of enforceability. 

• Example: “Any restrictions on solicitation or use of confidential information shall be limited to a radius of 10 miles from the company’s primary location and shall not exceed one year from the date of termination.” 

Conclusion 

California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 is a cornerstone of the state’s commitment to promoting open competition and employee mobility. By broadly invalidating non-compete agreements, California ensures that employees have the freedom to pursue new opportunities and contribute to the state’s dynamic economy. Employers and employees alike must understand the implications of B&P 16600 to navigate the legal landscape effectively. 

Understanding the nuances of B&P 16600, its exceptions, and relevant case law is essential for anyone involved in the California job market. By fostering a competitive and innovative environment, California’s strong stance against non-compete agreements ultimately benefits both businesses and employees.