When it comes to physician employment agreements, non-compete provisions can be controversial and tricky. The use of these agreements is nonetheless increasing and evolving as hospitals and other groups try to protect their investments in successful medical practices, especially those that they helped launch and nurture. After assuming the risks and costs of building a medical practice, they obviously do not want to see employed doctors move their practices (and patients) to a competitor.
The recent California Court of Appeal ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., creates some doubt about the continued viability of employee non-solicitation covenants. However, this case is distinguishable and appears limited to its facts, where the particular employee's profession was the business of recruiting temporary travel nurses and accordingly the court court found that the non-recruiting restriction was an unlawful restraint of trade or profession.
A federal appeals court recently ruled that an overbroad “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement with a former employee can be an unlawful restraint of trade under California law.
February 2013 was an active month in the world of non-competes and trade secrets, and if we read the tea leaves, it looks like things are only going to get busier.
Yahoo! recently named longtime Google executive, Marissa Mayer, as its new CEO. How can Google let this happen? Does she have a non-compete? Should Google be concerned? Read on for the answers to these questions and more.
In an eye opening decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a temporary restraining order partially enforcing a non-compete agreement. So are non-competes enforceable under California law after all? Does the trade secret exception to Section 16600 still exist?
Distinguishing the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, a California Appellate Court has held that an employee's e-mails with her personal attorney sent through the employer’s workplace computer are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Much has been written about Hewlett-Packard’s recently filed case against former CEO Mark Hurd following his acceptance of a job as president of Oracle. Does HP face an uphill battle because California has rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine?