| Despite what most high-tech employers
think, California courts are extremely reluctant to enforce
a non-compete agreement that an employee signs as a condition
of his/her employment.
California Business and Professions Code Section 16600
provides that subject to certain limited exceptions
"every contract by which anyone is restrained from
engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of
any kind is to that extent void." Thus, the general
rule is that a non-compete agreement is void as a matter
of law and California courts will not enforce it. The
reason is a public policy against contracts preventing
people from earning a living.
A non-compete agreement IS enforceable under certain,
limited conditions
In determining whether an exception to non-compete
agreements being void the California courts apply a
balancing test with the courts being willing to uphold
reasonable limited restrictions.
Exceptions
California law provides for certain limited exceptions
to the rule that non-compete agreements are void. California
Business and Professions Code Section 16601 provides
that a person who sells substantially all of his/her
interest in a company or all the assets thereof may
have a valid non-compete agreement that will be enforced
by California courts. The statute does not permit a
non-compete agreement where the shareholder sells less
than substantially all of his shares. Thus, where an
employee signs an agreement not to compete against his/her
employer after the employment has ceased, there is no
sale of his/her ownership interest in the company and
a non-compete agreement will not be enforceable.
Limited scope in order for the non-compete agreement
to be valid.
Despite the fact that Business and Professions Code
Section 16601 permits non-compete agreements, there
are still other requirements in order for such a non-compete
agreement to be valid. In order to be valid, the non-compete
agreement must, in addition to being part of a sale
of substantially all of the person's interest in the
company, be limited in terms of both time and geography.
Time Limitation
Since there is a general policy against preventing
a person from earning a living, the Courts are reluctant
to uphold these agreements in general. Where a non-compete
agreement fits within the exception of the sale of substantially
all of a person's interest in the company, there still
must be a limitation on the length of time that the
non-compete agreement is valid. If the non-compete agreement
provides that the seller will not compete with the purchaser
for 50 years it is almost certain that California courts
will void such an agreement as being too great a limitation
on the seller's ability to earn a living.
California courts generally permit non-compete agreements
for only relatively short-term duration, usually not
to exceed two to three years. A non-compete agreement
with a two to three year limitation on competition is
likely to be enforceable. Any longer period of time
and the courts will look with a skeptical eye towards
enforcement. Here too, however, there may be circumstances
that justify a longer term. Consultation with an attorney
in this area is essential to drafting an enforceable
non-compete agreement.
Geographical limitation
The limitation on competition must also be restricted
by geographical area. Whether a geographical limitation
is reasonable will depend upon the particular facts
involved. There are some basic guidelines to determining
whether a non-compete agreement will be enforceable.
However, an attorney should be contacted to review and
properly research your particular case.
Let's look at an example: If I sell an Italian Restaurant
in Moorpark and sign an agreement not to compete with
the Restaurant, the non-compete agreement must have
a reasonable limitation in the geographic area in which
I am agreeing not to compete.
In other words, if the agreement provides that I cannot
set up an Italian restaurant in Ventura County, California
courts are likely to enforce this non-compete agreement
since it has a reasonable geographic limitation on competition.
If, on the other hand, the agreement provides that I
cannot compete against my Moorpark restaurant anywhere
in the United States, the courts are unlikely enforce
such a non-compete agreement as being overbroad and
an unreasonable restraint on trade.
However, if I sold a chain of Italian restaurants that
operated throughout most of the major cities in the
United States, it is much more likely that the courts
would uphold such a non-compete agreement. The idea
being that a person that purchases a business will only
do so if the person that they are buying from cannot
open up a new competing business across the street.
The Internet and the New Economy
The rise of popularity of the Internet and b2b (business-to-business)
commerce has contributed to a worldwide economy. Businesses
now sell products and services exclusively over the
Internet. Thus, when a person sells their business the
question of geographical limitations on non-compete
agreements is a more open question.
The courts can now enforce non-compete agreements on
a much larger geographical basis since sales and income
can be generated over the Internet worldwide. Thus,
non-compete agreements relating to Internet commerce
and large geographical areas are increasingly likely
to be enforced by the courts.
Non-compete agreements while employed are valid
It is important to note that while only post-employment
non-compete agreements are void, non-compete agreements
during employment are quite enforceable. This is true
for several reasons. Business and Professions Code 16600
applies only to post-employment non-compete agreements.
Additionally, every employee owes to his/her employer
a duty of loyalty. If an employee goes into competition
with the employer while continuing to be employed by
that employer is likely to be in violation of his/her
duty of loyalty. Further, if the employee is using any
information obtain from his employer for the employer's
competitor, both the employee AND the competitor may
have liability for unfair competition/unfair trade practices.
There are too many legal pitfalls for the unwary. Therefore,
it is vitally important that a business consult with
an attorney when hiring and when purchasing or selling
a business.
PRESENTED BY:
J. Caleb Donner and Lori Donner are attorneys and partners
in the law firm DONNER & DONNER, a full-service
law firm practicing throughout Central and Southern
California. They can be reached at (805) 494-6557 or
e-mailed at donner@lawyer.com
for legal questions. See their web site: www.donnerlaw.com
for more legal information and articles.
|