Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> California Labor & Employment Defense Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: California Labor & Employment Defense BlogEmployers May be Liable for Honoring An Unenforceable Noncompete Agreement With Prior Employer -- Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc.
California takes a dim view of employee non-competion agreements, which are generally unenforceable and against public policy under Business and Professions Code sec. 16600. Nevertheless, employers (and especially out-of-state employers) persist in including them in employment contracts under the theory that "it can't hurt" to have them as a deterrent and a potential source of leverage.
When an employee leaves for a competitor these former employers will often send a sternly worded "cease and desist" letter to the new employer. It has been widely accepted that this type of letter can carry certain risks for the old employer, such as a claim for intentional interference with contract. But the recent Second District Court of Appeal decision in Silguero v. Creteguard illustrates that the new employer is also exposed to liability if it responds to the threat by terminating the employee.
The Silguero court began with the substantial body of case law holding that, in California, "the interests of the employee in his own mobility and betterment are deemed paramount to the competitive business interests of the employers." Based on this strong public policy the Court determined that any explicit no-hire agreement between the two companies would have been illegal and unenforceable. The Court further concluded that terminating Silguero "out of respect for" the non-compete agreement with his prior employer was merely achieving the same result in an indirect manner. As a result, the Court found that if Silguero could prove his allegations, his new employer would be liable for the common law tort of Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
The bottom line is that employers should not automatically terminate a new employee merely because he has executed a (presumably unenforceable) non-compete agreement.
Full post as published by California Labor & Employment Defense Blog on August 02, 2010 (boomark / email).
Prenuptial Agreements
Make an Airtight Prenuptial Agreement
Noncompete Agreements
Advantages and Disadvantages
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Uniform Pre-marital Agreement Act
Standard Prenuptial Law
Restaurant Staff
Win Lawsuit Suit Against Employer for Infiltrating their MySpace Forum
Loan Agreement
Vernalis to pay Endo Pharmaceuticals $7 million settlement.
Football-Related Dementia and Workers' Compensation
Football-Related Dementia Is the NFL Liable?
Merger Agreement Rejected
Finish Line and Genesco reach $175 million settlement in merger dispute.
Compound License
Palatin Technologies pays Competitive Technologies $800,000 agreement dispute settlement.

Enforceability of Clawback Provisions in Texas
Is Texas a Right to Work State Texas Supreme Court Makes Noncompete Agreements Easier to Enforce.
Dallas Noncompete Attorney: Texas Supreme Court Makes Agreements Easier to Enforce
Texas Supreme Court Makes Agreements Easier to Enforce
The Bill That Would Make Noncompete Agreements Unenforceable in Massachusetts
What can an Indiana employer do about hiring an Employee who might have trade secrets








