In a ruling long awaited by the employment law sector, the California Supreme Court on Thursday effectively rejected the use of most non-competition agreements in California. The unanimous court held that a state statute with roots in 19th century laws gives California workers great freedom to switch jobs, to compete against old employers and to solicit former clients. The ruling creates a new "bright line" for employers, said one employment law practitioner.
August 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
In a ruling long awaited by the employment law sector, the California Supreme Court on Thursday effectively rejected the use of most non-competition agreements in California (pdf).
In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, S147190, the unanimous court held that a state statute with roots in 19th century laws gives California workers great freedom to switch jobs, to compete against old employers and to solicit former clients.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
