legal news


Register | Forgot Password

EDWARDS II v. ANDERSEN LLP PART-II
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.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale