ColumnLawyersTCVerified Experts

It’s open season for poaching talent in Silicon Valley

Several recent court decisions have changed the landscape of California’s tournament law, concluding that employee non-solicitation provisions are per se invalid. These cases have major implications both for mature companies relying on such provisions to defend their talent pool, and for startups and other companies looking to attract the best people from their competitors.

California law is well-known for favoring open business tournament. a fundamental part of this policy is that, unlike the overwhelming majority of other states, California generally does not allow companies to contractually prevent their employees from leaving to join or commence a competing business. Unrestrained by “non-compete” provisions, employees can freely move among competitors, which helps facilitate the formation of disruptive brand-new businesses and fuels the non-stative Silicon Valley economy.

But, while classic non-competes are invalid, companies have long been able to rely on certain other contractual provisions that do not flatly prohibit an employee from working for an opposition. One such provision is an employee non-solicitation clause, which, rather than barring an employee from working for an opposition like a non-compete, prohibits a departing employee from trying to recruit other, current company employees to join the departing employee at his or her brand-new company. California businesses — gigantic and tiny, early and late-stage — have routinely included such provisions in their employment contracts.

For some moment the enforceability of these “employee non-solicit” provisions has been unclear and largely dependent on the facts of single cases, but several recent decisions have treated employee non-solicit provisions like non-competes and concluded that non-solicits are invalid under California law. These decisions pave the path for brand-new startups to more readily attract talent and increases the potential liability for companies that rely on non-solicit provisions.

In other words, the courts might have declared that it is open season for companies to poach another business’s talent pool.

Here’s a closer look at each case, followed by our analysis of the implications.

portion 16600: The California Law Protecting Unrestrained Employee Mobility.


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *