3 ms·

can you expand on the former point about recruiting? Non-solicit clauses in contracts are commonplace and I've never met someone in CA who doesn't think they h

can you expand on the former point about recruiting? Non-solicit clauses in contracts are commonplace and I've never met someone in CA who doesn't think they have legitimacy. If he was dumb enough to directly solicit instead of making himself available for people to reach out to, if they chose to, that's on him. But I'd like to know if this is an invalid folk-belief.

gamblor956 7y ago
It's an invalid folk belief perpetuated by employers. In CA, soliciting your fellow employees is perfectly permissible. As of 2019, this is a blanket rule for all employees, including executives, because courts have determined that non-solicit clauses violates multiple CA labor laws (including the prohibition on non-competes). However, executives may be subject to non-compete clauses in their employment contract. Executives, as highly-compensated employees, are exempt from CA prohibitions on non-compete clauses. Solicitation activity might violate the non-compete if the executive is going into a new business that directly competes with the actual activities of the old employer, but as a practical matter this can't really occur since the executive couldn't take the new job until after the non-compete period ends.
geoelectric 7y ago
...except for everyone in CA who reads the news. https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/06/11/employee-nonsolicitation-clauses-are-not-enforceable-in-california/?slreturn=20191110172323 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/06/11/employee-nonsolic... Edit: above was paywalled, and I didn't realize I was trial-viewing it. Think this is free for all: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5993e280-c03b-447c-8dcc-9895c2e963fc https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5993e280-c03b... They were only questionably enforceable before too, since they still amounted to a contract restriction limiting someone's employment opportunities (in this case, the person being recruited). While CA does codify non-competes (and now non-solicits) are void, general interpretation was that any restrictive contract clause wasn't going to fly in court except under very specific circumstances. CA takes a very dim view of restricting job mobility. Ethically, totally slack if he recruited while still employed, of course, and if he literally did it at work I suspect he'll run into a "using company resources (time, building, hipchat channel, etc)" issue, which is one of the things that severely weakens a defense that whatever you do yourself, you still own. No idea how or if that applies at a high-level action like starting a company, but if he had any technical contribution I could definitely see it coming up.

gamblor956 7y ago

It's an invalid folk belief perpetuated by employers. In CA, soliciting your fellow employees is perfectly permissible. As of 2019, this is a blanket rule for all employees, including executives, because courts have determined that non-solicit clauses violates multiple CA labor laws (including the prohibition on non-competes). However, executives may be subject to non-compete clauses in their employment contract. Executives, as highly-compensated employees, are exempt from CA prohibitions on non-compete clauses. Solicitation activity might violate the non-compete if the executive is going into a new business that directly competes with the actual activities of the old employer, but as a practical matter this can't really occur since the executive couldn't take the new job until after the non-compete period ends.

geoelectric 7y ago

...except for everyone in CA who reads the news. https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/06/11/employee-nonsolicitation-clauses-are-not-enforceable-in-california/?slreturn=20191110172323 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/06/11/employee-nonsolic... Edit: above was paywalled, and I didn't realize I was trial-viewing it. Think this is free for all: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5993e280-c03b-447c-8dcc-9895c2e963fc https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5993e280-c03b... They were only questionably enforceable before too, since they still amounted to a contract restriction limiting someone's employment opportunities (in this case, the person being recruited). While CA does codify non-competes (and now non-solicits) are void, general interpretation was that any restrictive contract clause wasn't going to fly in court except under very specific circumstances. CA takes a very dim view of restricting job mobility. Ethically, totally slack if he recruited while still employed, of course, and if he literally did it at work I suspect he'll run into a "using company resources (time, building, hipchat channel, etc)" issue, which is one of the things that severely weakens a defense that whatever you do yourself, you still own. No idea how or if that applies at a high-level action like starting a company, but if he had any technical contribution I could definitely see it coming up.