California Labor Code section 925 remains a potent weapon for departing employees who live and work in California who wish to avoid covenants not to compete. Often, employers will place choice of law provisions in their employment agreements and hope to enforce them in other states where such covenants are more likely to be enforced.
That practice became more difficult with the passage of Labor Code 925. Now, a federal court sitting in Minnesota has granted several defendants summary judgment on the basis that such covenants are not enforceable as a matter of law.
California Labor Code section 925 went into effect on January 1, 2017 and provides that employers cannot force an employee who resides and works primarily in California to agree, as a condition of employment, to: (1) litigate a claim arising in California in a forum outside of California; and (2) waive the employee’s right to the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. Such contractual provisions are voidable by the employee and must be adjudicated in California under California law. Further, section 925 applies not only to agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2017, but also those agreements modified or extended on or after that date.
In C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Traffic Tech, Inc. (D. Minn. Sep. 22, 2021), plaintiff CHR entered into business agreements with the defendant employees, as a condition of their...
Every couple of years, the same false stories come back. A claim that an election was rigged before a single vote was cast. An old video of violence, stripped of its date and place, presented as b...