Creteguard argued that "there was no clearly-delineated public policy prohibiting a subsequent employer from honoring a putatively valid non-compete/confidentiality agreement entered into by an employee and a former employer," and that any restraint in trade was committed by the prior employer, not it. The employee sued Creteguard, alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy because Creteguard terminated her due to her non-compete agreement with her previous employer. Creteguard then terminated the employee, stating "it has been brought to my attention… that you have signed a confidentiality/non-compete agreement with your past employer e regret to inform you that is unable to continue your employment effective today… lthough we believe that non-compete clauses are not legally enforceable here in California, would like to keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry." After her hire, her previous employer contacted Creteguard and informed it of the employee’s agreement not to compete for a period of 18 months. The employee ultimately was fired, and a few months later, found employment with Creteguard, Inc., a competitor of her former employer. In this case, a sales employee signed a non-compete agreement with her previous employer which purportedly prohibited her from working for a competitor for 18 months post- termination. B215179, represents an expansion of an employee’s right to sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |