However, two recent cases in California have cast doubt on Loral`s future viability and found that such non-advertising provisions are not applicable to employees. The question we should address is: can an employer prohibit advertising that is not related to the use of trade secrets within the framework of UCL? A no-recruitment agreement for employees, also known as non-interference or non-competition, can be found in all types of employment contracts, including letters of offer of work and termination contracts. These commitments may constitute a separate contractual agreement or be made available as a single clause in a wider employment contract. When an employee signs a no-pocher agreement, that employee promises not to ask, attract or encourage employees to leave their current employer to work either for or with the worker who signed the agreement. In Los Angeles, the main purpose of employee debauchery agreements is to prevent employees from being assaulted by former employees who have found new employment with their former employer`s competitors or who have decided to start their own business that would perform work similar to that of a former employer. To date, California courts have yet to officially declared debauchery agreements for disabled and illegal employees under California law. But let`s assume there are no trade secrets in the phone repair shop, and the former manager actually opened a competing repair shop right next to her former employer. The new store operator may be contractually prohibited from recruiting customers and other employees of the old store through a no-pocher agreement. In Barker v.
Insight Global, a January 2019 decision, the court said it was “satisfied with AMN`s explanatory memorandum that California law is correctly interpreted according to Edwards to invalidate the non-debauchery provisions for employees.” Furthermore, the Tribunal “was not satisfied that the secondary decision in the AMN CASE, which invalidates the prohibition of debauchery under Loral because of the particular professional obligations of these employees, removes or limits primary participation.” When it comes to recruiting employees, it`s common for no-poaching agreements to prohibit an outgoing employee from “disrupting the company`s relationship or trying to keep an employee away from the company`s company.” In other words, when the telephone repair manager left to open her own store, she was contractually forbidden to offer jobs to her former colleagues to occupy her new store. California courts have declared the bans legal, arguing that they “take into account the interests of an employer who maintains a stable workforce and stays in business,” despite the reluctance to do business. However, this type of prohibition on debauchery must be considered “appropriate”, both to the extent and within the time limits. California law has long prohibited any contract “that prevents a person from engaging in any profession, trade, or legal activity of any kind.” Callus. Bus. Prof. Code Section 16600. Under this law, non-compete clauses do not apply after the termination of the employment relationship or provisions to poach customers in California. 3. The California Supreme Court has refused to recognize the “narrow restriction” exception in non-compete agreements We know that debauchery prohibition clauses are generally unenforceable to limit competition. . .