The application of no-pocher agreements for employees under California law varies depending on the context of the agreement and the scope of the provision. When considering whether to maintain a no-pocher agreement for employees, two main aspects will be considered by the courts: a California appeals court issued an opinion a few weeks ago further limiting the question of when the request of other staff members can be prohibited. The workers at issue in the case were intermediaries of nursing staff, who argued that a limitation on their ability to contact and recruit employees (who were nurses) of their former employer was in fact a restriction on their profession and that the agreement prohibiting debauchery was contrary to Article 16600. The Court of Appeals agreed and found that, in these narrow circumstances and because of the workers` occupation (i.e. the recruitment of other employees) was in fact a non-compete clause and was therefore contrary to California law. Loral Corp., however, was questioned by AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., 28 Cal.App.5th 923 (2018) in which the Court of Appeal announced an agreement to prohibit debauchery for employees, which provided for a 12-month ban on a human resources agent who left the company and joined a competitor. The court argued that the prohibition of debauchery clause, as it applied to this particular worker – whose livelihood depended on his ability to recruit other employees on behalf of his current employer – was contrary to Section 16600, as it could “limit the amount of remuneration that a human resources facilitator would receive with his new agency”. While amn Healthcare did not disagree with Loral Corp., it found that Section 16600 embodied California`s strong public interest in preventing trade restrictions and did not allow for a “narrow restriction exception” that other jurisdictions could recognize. Given amn Healthcare, the application of the no-debauchery clauses for employees is uncertain.
In many countries, an employee may be required to sign a no-pocher agreement before or after hiring by an employer, even if the original employment contract has been terminated or otherwise terminates. However, California is different and attaches great importance to employee mobility and free commercial competition. Accordingly, a customer/customer prohibition agreement is neither enforceable nor valid under California law. The main part of the agreement is a list of restricted types of appeals, including restrictions against: a non-competition clause is more general. It tries to prevent someone from starting a business in direct competition with the old employer or new business owner within a defined area for a set time. For example, if Jill has signed a non-compete clause, she may have to agree not to sell benefit equipment to another company for two years and within a 50-mile radius. If Joe is a salesperson for XYZ Inc., he may have taken his contact list. If he tries to contact her, he could be sued for request. And if Sharon is trying to attract customers from her former company, it`s the same thing.
Some legal cases came from the side of the former employee. In one case in Massachusetts in 2012, a new employer announced on Facebook the name of a person who joined his company and responded to some of his customers. The court said that in the absence of a direct invitation to customers, the agreement was not violated. Generally speaking, there are two types of debauchery prohibition agreements for employees: recruitment bans that prevent an employee from recruiting others to his or her former company; and prohibitions on debauchery, in which the employee agrees not to recruit other employees of the company. . . .