The Edwards case clarifies aspects of Section 16600.  Prior to the Edwards case, some companies successfully convinced federal judges that Section 16600 [California's noncompete law] permits noncompete agreements as long as the ex-employee is not completely foreclosed from working in his or her industry.  Of course, federal interpretation of Sect. 16600 statute begged the question, where in the California law does it say some restraints on one's profession are allowed?  [It does not.] Because federal court interpretation of California's non-compete law conflicted with the clear language and intent of Section 16600, the Edwards case has now corrected and eliminated the federal courts' exception that some federal judges read into the law. All this aside, in my view the Edwards case does NOT eliminate the day to day battles that take place in "noncompete wars."  This is because  companies will continue the fraudulent practice of imposing illegal noncompete agreements on unsuspecting or unsophisticated employees.

Moreover, again in my view, Section 16000 remains deficient in that the law does not provide judicial remedies for employees when they become victims of an employer's fraudulent practices, nor does Section 16600 impose financial penalties to employers who either ignore the law or engage in acts that are in clear violation of the statute.  If there is a benefit to the Edwards case it is that once again the California Supreme Court has emphasized Business and Professions Code Section 16600 means what it says, any document that restricts an ex-employee's "right to work" [aka working in his or her profession] is VOID [meaning it's not worth the paper it is written on.]

BACK TO PAGE 2 | BACK TO INDEX