Research summary
Research summary
Topic summary
Holdings that support an affirmative answer, each with the opinion cited.
Important claims and supporting citations
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) held in Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas (2012) that employment agreement covenants targeting an employee's right to pursue their profession are void under Section 16600.
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC (2020) that overly broad confidentiality provisions operate as de facto noncompetes.
In Hill Medical Corp. v. Wycoff (2001), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that the sale-of-business exception under Section 16601 does not validate noncompetition covenants where the stock repurchase reflects internal capital value rather than the transfer of company goodwill.
In a 2018 follow-up case, Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a no-employment provision preventing a physician from working at large hospital networks was a substantial restraint void under Section 16600.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held in Latona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. (1999) that firing an employee for refusing to sign an illegal noncompete supports a Tameny wrongful termination claim.
The California Court of Appeal (Second District) ruled in Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network (1994) that an employee's talents and skills belong to them, not the employer.
In Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (2009), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses are void and unenforceable under Section 16600.
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) that employee non-solicitation provisions are void under Section 16600.
View all claims (text)
Claims
Claim text is for reading and citation. Bulk copying and AI training need a licensed maps data API key. Markdown
Contractual provisions that penalize competitive activity by forfeiting pension rights or deferred compensati…
Contractual provisions that penalize competitive activity by forfeiting pension rights or deferred compensation are void under Section 16600.
Labels: Inferred, Medium
Employers cannot use noncompete covenants to restrict former employees from using their general professional…
Employers cannot use noncompete covenants to restrict former employees from using their general professional expertise, style, or industry training.
Labels: Inferred, Medium
In Edwards v.
In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court held that Section 16600 prohibits non-compete agreements even if they are narrowly tailored.
Labels: Inferred, Medium
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in AMN Healthcare, Inc.
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) that employee non-solicitation provisions are void under Section 16600.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
In Thompson v.
In Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc. (2003), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) ruled that antisolicitation covenants are void as unlawful business restraints except when protecting trade secrets.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
California Business and Professions Code § 16600.1 renders the execution or attempted enforcement of noncompe…
California Business and Professions Code § 16600.1 renders the execution or attempted enforcement of noncompete clauses unlawful.
Labels: Inferred, Medium
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) held in Fillpoint, LLC v.
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) held in Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas (2012) that employment agreement covenants targeting an employee's right to pursue their profession are void under Section 16600.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in Brown v.
The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) ruled in Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC (2020) that overly broad confidentiality provisions operate as de facto noncompetes.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
Chamberlin v.
Chamberlin v. Augustine (1916) held that conditioning the right to pursue a trade upon payment of liquidated damages constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
Under California statutory law, any contract that restrains an individual from engaging in a lawful professio…
Under California statutory law, any contract that restrains an individual from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is void.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
The California Court of Appeal (Second District) ruled in Metro Traffic Control, Inc.
The California Court of Appeal (Second District) ruled in Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network (1994) that an employee's talents and skills belong to them, not the employer.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
California courts lack the authority to 'blue-pencil' or rewrite overbroad employment noncompetition agreemen…
California courts lack the authority to 'blue-pencil' or rewrite overbroad employment noncompetition agreements into lawful covenants.
Labels: Inferred, Medium
In Hill Medical Corp.
In Hill Medical Corp. v. Wycoff (2001), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that the sale-of-business exception under Section 16601 does not validate noncompetition covenants where the stock repurchase reflects internal capital value rather than the transfer of company goodwill.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
In a 2018 follow-up case, Golden v.
In a 2018 follow-up case, Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a no-employment provision preventing a physician from working at large hospital networks was a substantial restraint void under Section 16600.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
In Dowell v.
In Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (2009), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses are void and unenforceable under Section 16600.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
California law mandates that § 16600 be read broadly to void any noncompete agreement in an employment contex…
California law mandates that § 16600 be read broadly to void any noncompete agreement in an employment context, regardless of how narrowly tailored it is.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
Silguero v.
Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc. (2010) established that an employer commits tortious discharge in violation of public policy if they terminate an employee because a third party asserts an unenforceable noncompete covenant.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
California Business and Professions Code § 16600.5 establishes that contracts void under § 16600 are unenforc…
California Business and Professions Code § 16600.5 establishes that contracts void under § 16600 are unenforceable regardless of whether they were signed outside California.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
The U.S.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held in Latona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. (1999) that firing an employee for refusing to sign an illegal noncompete supports a Tameny wrongful termination claim.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium
The California Supreme Court in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v.
The California Supreme Court in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) affirmed that the policy considerations regarding employment mobility from Edwards apply to employment noncompete agreements.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium