Having concluded the noncompetition agreement was invalid, we further hold Andersen's action of demanding execution of the TONC as consideration for release of the noncompetition agreement was an independently wrongful act for purposes of the third element of Edwards's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim.[1] We have previously held that an employer â€
Description
Noncompetition agreements between employees and employers that bar employee from performing services for former clients are invalid if not within statutory or trade secrets exceptions to Business and Professions Code Sec. 11660, which bars such agreements, even if restraints imposed are narrow and leave a substantial portion of market open to the employee. Where individual's noncompetition contract with former employer restricted his ability to practice his accounting profession, trial court erred in concluding that noncompetition contract, and subsequent agreement that employer demanded he sign in consideration for release from noncompetition contract, were valid and thus no basis for his claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against former employer. Where subsequent agreement contained broad release of liability for "any and all claims" arising out of employment, release amounted to waiver of his indemnity rights under Labor Code Sec. 2802 and requiring employee to sign agreement constituted independently wrongful act for purposes of intentional interference claim. Provision in subsequent agreement requiring that employee not disparage former employer or its affiliates did not violate Labor Code Sec. 1102.5, a whistleblower protection provision, where employee did not claim former employer retaliated against him for disclosing information and employer was not trying to enforce an overbroad, nondisparagement agreement.
