5 ms·

"The suit accuses Anderson of having tried to recruit away employees from Tesla" ... I hope not, since that's not a thing that's illegal. Tesla should certainl

"The suit accuses Anderson of having tried to recruit away employees from Tesla" ... I hope not, since that's not a thing that's illegal. Tesla should certainly know that most non-solicits are not enforceable in california (and i only say most because occasionally, one is found valid, but the vast majority are not)

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
From my understanding, a key point in the lawsuit was that he was still working for Tesla when he was recruiting people for his new job.
- kirykl 10y ago
  That would be the key. Breach of fiduciary duty
  - dsp1234 10y ago
    from the complaint[0]: "While still employed by Tesla, and while assuring management of his loyalty, Anderson secretly set out to hire Tesla's Autopilot engineers for his own competing venture" [0] - https://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/DocumentViewer/Index/dUuVm96IyH_YZZiskgIn8sIpwBYcPf89GPskFudh7U0MznTZZ6R46YEcYaKjCLv-qLFqplzkkWe4in91pcUEvJSorjDOhEGwMTdUsRjUQk7UI7h-GtaTP2m3ousy7y1S0?p=0 https://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/DocumentViewer/Index/dU...
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      Ah, there it is. Not made as clear as it could be by TechCrunch. Even in the most generous reading of anti-non-solicitation agreement law would probably uphold a restriction on doing it while employed.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kylec 10y ago
Even if the lawsuit is without merit, Tesla still wins because future former employees will be more reluctant to try and recruit their former coworkers if they know Tesla will sue them for it.
- cynix 10y ago
  Not if they know Tesla will lose such lawsuits.
  - Operyl 10y ago
    At the same time, though, fighting a lawsuit is death to most startups. It'd still have the same consequences, even if Tesla loses here.
  - kylec 10y ago
    It would be a huge stress and inconvenience if a company sued me, even if I eventually won or the suit was thrown out. I'd have to find a lawyer, deal with the company's lawyers, show up in court, etc. That alone is enough of a deterrent for a lot of people.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
madebysquares 10y ago
Unless he signed a 365 day non-compete which is fairly standard. In which case he would be in breach of contract.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Those things are pretty much unenforcable in California.
  - praneshp 10y ago
    Are you sure? The non-competes about working for a competitor is un-enforceable, but what about the ones that ban directly approaching former colleagues?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      As ocdtrekkie pointed out, the key point here is he was soliciting former colleagues while there were still current colleagues. Even California won't protect you there. The one tool companies have at their disposal in CA is the prohibition of using your old company's trade secrets in your new job. Mostly that means you can't take customer lists with you, but you also can't use confidential information to lure away former colleagues. What that means in practice isn't completely clear to me, though it may just be that you can't take the org chart. EDIT: http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/ http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      A non-compete is a different agreement than a non-solicitation agreement. The former is categorically unenforceable in California. The latter is much more of a gray area and dependent on circumstances.
    - pfarnsworth 10y ago
      That isn't a non-compete. That's a non-solicitation, which is enforceable, at least civilly.
  - 10y ago
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> most non-solicits are not enforceable in California To clarify: "Provisions preventing former employees from competing with their former employers by soliciting their customers (absent use of trade secrets) are...void... The law regarding agreements prohibiting an employee from soliciting employees from former employers, however, is far less clear at this point. ... Provisions that outright bar the hiring of employees are likely to be found unenforceable in many circumstances and should generally be avoided. Where such provisions are used, they should be narrowly tailored, apply only to employees with whom the restrained individual works or becomes aware of during their employment, and/or make any hiring contingent on the payment of fixed sum liquidated damages. Separately, non-solicitation agreements between employer and employee, like the one at issue in Loral, are likely permissible with the caveat that they should be limited in term and scope. The term of such provisions is typically limited to one or two years, and large employers should consider limiting the scope to employees that the individual worked with and/or became aware of during the individual’s employment." Regarding Loral: "The court noted that unlike a no-hire provision, the non-solicitation agreement 'only slightly affects’’ Loral employees, because they were not prevented from seeking employment by contacting [the defendant] – they were only affected insomuch as [the defendant] could not contact them." TL;DR It sounds like Tesla's ex-employee broke his non-solicit by soliciting employees he worked with at Tesla. http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/49d21da6-33cb-45ff-8452-7c7ab1bad622/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/713339ae-5178-4bb9-a5c6-82c1b12afb9c/FEB2015%20CLEB.pdf http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/49d21da6-33cb-45ff...
- dsp1234 10y ago
  TL;DR It sounds like Tesla's ex-employee broke his non-solicit by soliciting employees he worked with at Tesla. The complaint is clear. This is about more than non-solicitation, and Anderson was not an ex-employee at the time. From the complaint: "Anderson worked to recruit Tesla's engineers, eventually making offers to at least a dozen people — all in direct violation of his contractual non-solicitation obligations and the duty of loyalty that he owed to Tesla as an employee." This is about breach of duty of loyalty, and interference with contracts. edit: phrasing
  - 10y ago
lbatx 10y ago
> I hope not, since that's not a thing that's illegal. It doesn't have to be illegal to be a valid point in a civil suit. Things that are legal can be prohibited by contract. Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

From my understanding, a key point in the lawsuit was that he was still working for Tesla when he was recruiting people for his new job.

kirykl 10y ago
That would be the key. Breach of fiduciary duty
- dsp1234 10y ago
  from the complaint[0]: "While still employed by Tesla, and while assuring management of his loyalty, Anderson secretly set out to hire Tesla's Autopilot engineers for his own competing venture" [0] - https://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/DocumentViewer/Index/dUuVm96IyH_YZZiskgIn8sIpwBYcPf89GPskFudh7U0MznTZZ6R46YEcYaKjCLv-qLFqplzkkWe4in91pcUEvJSorjDOhEGwMTdUsRjUQk7UI7h-GtaTP2m3ousy7y1S0?p=0 https://cmportal.scscourt.org/Portal/DocumentViewer/Index/dU...
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    Ah, there it is. Not made as clear as it could be by TechCrunch. Even in the most generous reading of anti-non-solicitation agreement law would probably uphold a restriction on doing it while employed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kylec 10y ago

Even if the lawsuit is without merit, Tesla still wins because future former employees will be more reluctant to try and recruit their former coworkers if they know Tesla will sue them for it.

cynix 10y ago
Not if they know Tesla will lose such lawsuits.
- Operyl 10y ago
  At the same time, though, fighting a lawsuit is death to most startups. It'd still have the same consequences, even if Tesla loses here.
- kylec 10y ago
  It would be a huge stress and inconvenience if a company sued me, even if I eventually won or the suit was thrown out. I'd have to find a lawyer, deal with the company's lawyers, show up in court, etc. That alone is enough of a deterrent for a lot of people.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

madebysquares 10y ago

Unless he signed a 365 day non-compete which is fairly standard. In which case he would be in breach of contract.

gozur88 10y ago
Those things are pretty much unenforcable in California.
- praneshp 10y ago
  Are you sure? The non-competes about working for a competitor is un-enforceable, but what about the ones that ban directly approaching former colleagues?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    As ocdtrekkie pointed out, the key point here is he was soliciting former colleagues while there were still current colleagues. Even California won't protect you there. The one tool companies have at their disposal in CA is the prohibition of using your old company's trade secrets in your new job. Mostly that means you can't take customer lists with you, but you also can't use confidential information to lure away former colleagues. What that means in practice isn't completely clear to me, though it may just be that you can't take the org chart. EDIT: http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/ http://www.rhdtlaw.com/job-hopping-california-right/
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    A non-compete is a different agreement than a non-solicitation agreement. The former is categorically unenforceable in California. The latter is much more of a gray area and dependent on circumstances.
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    That isn't a non-compete. That's a non-solicitation, which is enforceable, at least civilly.
- 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> most non-solicits are not enforceable in California To clarify: "Provisions preventing former employees from competing with their former employers by soliciting their customers (absent use of trade secrets) are...void... The law regarding agreements prohibiting an employee from soliciting employees from former employers, however, is far less clear at this point. ... Provisions that outright bar the hiring of employees are likely to be found unenforceable in many circumstances and should generally be avoided. Where such provisions are used, they should be narrowly tailored, apply only to employees with whom the restrained individual works or becomes aware of during their employment, and/or make any hiring contingent on the payment of fixed sum liquidated damages. Separately, non-solicitation agreements between employer and employee, like the one at issue in Loral, are likely permissible with the caveat that they should be limited in term and scope. The term of such provisions is typically limited to one or two years, and large employers should consider limiting the scope to employees that the individual worked with and/or became aware of during the individual’s employment." Regarding Loral: "The court noted that unlike a no-hire provision, the non-solicitation agreement 'only slightly affects’’ Loral employees, because they were not prevented from seeking employment by contacting [the defendant] – they were only affected insomuch as [the defendant] could not contact them." TL;DR It sounds like Tesla's ex-employee broke his non-solicit by soliciting employees he worked with at Tesla. http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/49d21da6-33cb-45ff-8452-7c7ab1bad622/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/713339ae-5178-4bb9-a5c6-82c1b12afb9c/FEB2015%20CLEB.pdf http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/49d21da6-33cb-45ff...

dsp1234 10y ago
TL;DR It sounds like Tesla's ex-employee broke his non-solicit by soliciting employees he worked with at Tesla. The complaint is clear. This is about more than non-solicitation, and Anderson was not an ex-employee at the time. From the complaint: "Anderson worked to recruit Tesla's engineers, eventually making offers to at least a dozen people — all in direct violation of his contractual non-solicitation obligations and the duty of loyalty that he owed to Tesla as an employee." This is about breach of duty of loyalty, and interference with contracts. edit: phrasing
- 10y ago

lbatx 10y ago

> I hope not, since that's not a thing that's illegal. It doesn't have to be illegal to be a valid point in a civil suit. Things that are legal can be prohibited by contract. Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant.