The Court of Appeal set aside that decision and found that the provision was not applicable under California law. It found that the supply was broad and covered all VLS employees, whether they worked with Star Trac or even were employed at that time. “Such a broad provision is not necessary to protect THE interests of VLS and is offset by the policy to promote workers` freedom of mobility,” the court wrote. It distinguished itself from Webb and Loral and found that the restrictions were considered valid in these cases, as their scope was less broad and a smaller number of workers were maintained. The Edwards Court approved a clear interpretation of the word “restriction” as “limit” and not “prohibition” and found that a non-compete obligation agreement that did not fit into the expressly listed legal exceptions was not applicable. In addition, it should be noted that some states allow such restrictions on competition. California is perhaps the strictest state in the United States when it comes to allowing ex-employees to compete with former employers. The hospital later terminated the contract and hired another doctor to take over Webb`s recruitment services. This physician, in turn, provided four of the doctors originally recruited by Webb, who then asked for $120,000 plus legal fees. During the conciliation, the hospital argued that the contract was non-sour because it was an unenforceable commercial restriction.
The arbitrator contradicted and found that this was appropriate and non-restricted. There are two types of non-calls: one that limits the employee`s ability to request clients and the other that limits the employee`s ability to recruit staff (see article #5 below). In AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare Services, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) assessed the non-validity of a non-invitation clause for employees pursuant to Section 16600. Competing companies in this case have recruited companies that have put temporary “traveller nurses” into open positions. AMN Healthcare attempted to impose non-recruitment agreements on some recruiters who left their jobs to work for their competitor Aya Healthcare and later employed nurses that recruiters had previously placed via AMN. VL Systems v. Unisen (2007): The Court of Appeal found that a non-rental provision in a contract between companies was not applicable. Are you being sued by a former employer for allegedly violating a non-invitation agreement? If so, they have the right website for all your labor law questions. Laws and judgments on non-demand agreements for employees are both difficult and complex. So it would be a good idea to contact one of the Los Angeles employment lawyers at the HKM Employment Attorneys LLP in Los Angeles, California. Any decision to maintain such provisions in the California agreements should be made in consultation with counsel.
Employers who comply with these provisions should ensure that these agreements have strong separation provisions. More importantly, these employers should go to a council if (1) a potential tenant refuses to sign an agreement because such a provision is not applicable and (2) the employer is considering imposing such a non-invitation provision to an outgoing worker. The NMA`s decision calls into question the implementation of staff initiative agreements in California. The judgment unequivocally rejects the Moyes court`s assertion that the limitation on the recruitment of workers is not a violation of Section 16600. This ambiguity will persist until other courts and ultimately the California Supreme Court intervene. The Tribunal challenged Arthur Andersen and found that the non-competition agreement at issue in the case was not valid under California law. The agreement prohibited the employee from providing professional services to any client with whom he worked with Arthur Andersen for a period of 18 months.