Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[5ShidlerJLComTech022] Invalidity of Covenants not to Compete in California Affects Employers Nationwide

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce and Technology
dc.contributor.author Wardwell, Sheri
dc.date.accessioned 2010-06-07T19:54:55Z
dc.date.available 2010-06-07T19:54:55Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation 5 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 22 (2009) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1547-0695
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/436
dc.description.abstract Abstract: In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the Supreme Court of California rejected the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ “narrow restraint” exception to California Business and Professional Code section 16600 regarding the unenforceability of covenants not to compete (CNCs). Edwards affirms that, unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception, CNCs in employment agreements are invalid as a matter of law in California because of California's strong interest in protecting employee mobility as codified in section 16600. Despite California’s strong public policy against CNCs, an employee who wins the race to a California courthouse may not necessarily benefit from section 16600 if the employee was not a California resident or employed by a Californian employer at the time she agreed to a CNC. This Article evaluates California law and the resolution of the conflict of law issues that arise between California and other states more willing to enforce CNCs. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Shidler Journal of Law, Commerce and Technology, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Corporate & Commercial en_US
dc.title [5ShidlerJLComTech022] Invalidity of Covenants not to Compete in California Affects Employers Nationwide en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law

Advanced Search


My Account