You may have heard the half-serious joke that California acts as its own independent country. One example of this is California’s strong disfavor of non-compete agreements, which stands in contrast with the rest of the country which permits these agreements to varying degrees.
California has leaned further into its famed independence with the passage of Senate Bill 699, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024. SB 699 seeks to strengthen California’s existing ban against non-compete agreements set forth in Business and Professions Code section 16600 which simply states that, outside of certain sale-of-the-business situations, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” SB 699 will add section 16600.5 to the Business and Professions Code and prohibit an employer or former employer from seeking to enforce a non-compete contract that is void under section 16600 regardless of whether the employee worked outside of California and regardless of where the agreement was signed.
SB 699 will mean that an employee living and working in Texas who signs an enforceable non-compete agreement under Texas law with a Texas employer, could move to California to open or work for a competing business. The Texas non-compete agreement would be void and unenforceable in California. Not only would the non-compete agreement be void, but the former employee would be entitled to bring a private civil action against the employer if it attempts to enforce the non-compete agreement. If the employee prevails, he or she would be entitled to recover injunctive relief or actual damages, or both, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Ultimately, SB 699 may not change things much for California employers. Non-compete agreements have been in disfavor in this state long enough so that many businesses forego such restrictions in favor of narrowly tailored non-solicitation and trade secrets provisions. Rather, the significance of the new law is its impact on businesses in other states. Indeed, the purpose of the bill is to breathe new life into California’s business climate by permitting competing businesses in California to make hiring decisions that would otherwise have been restricted in another state.
Even so, SB 699 may be challenged on constitutional grounds. For example, states are generally limited in their ability to enact laws that impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce. A state law that places an undue burden that exceeds the local benefits of the law runs afoul of the “dormant commerce clause.” (Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 397 U.S. 142.) In the face of such a challenge, California will likely argue that SB 699 frees commerce by allowing employees to freely practice their trade or profession, and thus there is no constitutional threat. Another possible challenge is that California’s new law appears to infringe on each other states’ independent right to enact and enforce its own laws. Suffice it to state that SB 699 will be subject to scrutiny by the federal courts.
Pending the results of a challenge on the enforceability of SB 699, both in-state and out-of-state businesses should be extremely wary of any attempt to enforce non-compete agreements against employees residing in California. In addition, employers should continue to keep an eye on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed ban on non-compete agreements. If this passes, it would halt non-competes in employment agreements nationwide, putting the rest of the nation on the same footing as California employers. A vote on the ban is not expected to take place until April of 2024.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Counsel
Jared W. Slater is a Counsel in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014