A recent federal district court ruling serves as an important reminder that a former employee may be held liable for trade secret misappropriation even if the alleged trade secrets are not physically or electronically taken by the departing employee, but instead retained only in memory.Continue Reading Evidence of a Defendant’s Physical or Digital Retention of Trade Secret Information Is Not Required to Prove Trade Secret Misappropriation Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act
As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor
In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement
California has passed two new items of legislation, Senate Bill 699 and Assembly Bill 1076, which will further regulate and restrict the enforcement of employment non-compete agreements in California, and expand the scope of remedies for those affected by them. These new laws will become effective on January 1, 2024, and now is the time for employers to assess and revise their employment-related agreements and restrictive covenants accordingly. As detailed below, they also require employers to notify employees and certain former employees by February 15, 2024 that certain non-compete provisions are void. The two new laws are detailed below.Continue Reading California Strengthens Non-Competition Law
In Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No. 17-16193, 2019 WL 924827 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that statutes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), do not constitute “rule[s] or regulation[s] of the Securities and Exchange Commission” (“SEC”) for purposes of determining whether an employee engaged in protected activity in a whistleblower claim under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). This decision clarifies the proper application of the express statutory language of Section 806.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Statutes Do Not Constitute “Rules or Regulations of the SEC” for Purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Claims
We wanted to provide an update on our earlier report about recent legislative happenings in San Francisco. (A link to our earlier article can be found here.) The San
Continue Reading UPDATE: San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights
On November 25, 2014, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed two ordinances that are collectively referred to as the San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights: (1) the “Hours and Retention Protections for Formula Retail Employees” ordinance and (2) the “Fair Scheduling and Treatment of Formula Retail Employees” ordinance. The San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights must be passed by Mayor Edwin Lee in order to take effect. However, even if the mayor were to veto the ordinances, the Board of Supervisors may be able to override the veto and enact the ordinances.
Continue Reading San Francisco Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights
On Monday, July 21, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Galen v. Redfin Corp., A138642. This case is important for two reasons: (1) the court upheld an arbitration agreement between a Seattle-based company and a California plaintiff challenging his status (and that of the putative class) as an independent contractor (v. employee), even though the agreement provided for the application of Washington law and a Washington venue; and (2) it reinforces California’s strong policy of enforcing forum-selection clauses, a policy that is relevant outside the context of arbitration, such as in the noncompete context.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Enforces Contractor’s Agreement to Arbitrate Misclassification Claims Out of State
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently refused to enforce a covenant not to compete against the former employee and selling shareholder of a video game company. In Fillpoint, LLC, v. Maas et al., Case No. G045057, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 914 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2012), the Court of Appeal determined that half of a two-part noncompete agreement entered into in the context of the sale of a business was unenforceable, despite the exception for such covenants found in Business and Professions Code Section 16601 (“Section 16601”). This case answers what had previously been an open question under California law: Whether an acquiring company can obtain a non-compete that begins to run upon termination of employment (as opposed to or in addition to a non-compete that begins to run upon closing) from a shareholder who becomes an employee of the buyer. See Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Ins. Servs. v. Robb, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1812 (1995) (enforcing a noncompete agreement against a selling shareholder that commenced at termination of employment, without any discussion or analysis of whether using termination of employment as the trigger for a noncompete violates Section 16601).
Continue Reading California Court Of Appeal Refuses To Enforce Non-Compete Against Selling Shareholder
Employers with sales teams in California need to get ready. California has a new commission contract law, AB 1396, which takes effect January 1, 2013. Under AB 1396, which amends California Labor Code section 2751, employers who pay commissions to their employees are required to enter into written commission contracts with employees. The contract must describe the method by which commissions are computed and paid. Employers must also provide a copy of the signed contract to each employee, and get a signed receipt from each employee. That’s the easy part. Here’s the tricky part. Going forward, when a contract governing commissions expires without being replaced but the employee continues work, the terms of the “expired” contract will apply to commissions until the parties sign a new agreement or until the employment is terminated. As a result, it will be important to get new commission contracts in place before or when the old ones expire.
Continue Reading New California Commission Contract Rules – It is Not Too Early To Get Ready!