Date:  08/19/2008

Time:   10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Pacific 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Eastern

Location:   Webinar

Speakers:   David J. Murphy, James Pooley

Contact:   Wende Arrollado

Contact Phone:  (858) 314-7597

Description:  

In a decision just issued in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a provision in an employment agreement restricting an employee from serving customers of or competing with a former employer is invalid under California Business & Professions Code section 16600. The employer had claimed that, as long as this restriction was only a “partial” or “narrow restraint” on an employee’s ability to work in other jobs, California law should permit it. While some federal courts had agreed with a “partial” or “narrow restraint” approach, the Court made clear that this was not the rule in California, but that instead California’s prohibition on noncompetition agreements in section 16600 must be strictly enforced.
The marketplace result is that California will continue to have a high velocity labor market, with the type of high employee mobility that many economists and social scientists believe has fueled its high level of technological innovation. But the legal results of the Court’s decision confirming California’s rule that non-competition agreements are not permitted in this state, even if they only partially or narrowly restrain an employee’s trade or profession, may be more significant.

This webinar will focus on the following issues:

• What does California’s reinforced prohibition on noncompetition agreements mean for both California-based and national employers with operations in California.
  
• What kind of post-employment restrictions, including possible restraints on solicitation of a company’s customers and other employees at the departing employee’s new company, are still worthwhile to have.
  
• What risks from invalid employee restraints does a company face.
  
• What review should be conducted of a company’s employment-related and proprietary information agreements to insure that any noncompetition or nonsolicitation provisions are limited as California law provides to avoid these risks.
  What are the implications of the Edwards v. Arthur Andersen decision for a company’s overall trade secret protection program.
  

To join the webinar on August 19th, please click on the link below and enter your name, company, and email.

http://www.veracast.com/mofo/index.cfm

Morrison & Foerster LLP (provider # 2183) certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hours. This program is intended for experienced attorneys and practitioners.