I often think of living in California.
The warm weather, the fact that the air just somehow feels different. The sand running through your toes as you soak it all. And of course, the punishing taxes and regulations...but still.
And of course I think of what it would be like to be a non-compete attorney in California, because man would it be weird. You'd almost have to reverse most of your instincts. You wouldn't have to hedge when you talk to clients. You could actually dispense advice without the maddening qualifiers like, "well maybe a court would do this, but hey maybe not. Good luck!"
The reason, of course, is that California is pretty hostile to most types of restraints on trade, due to Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code, which states that "every contract" in which one is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is void. That's strong stuff. But despite attorneys' ability to give somewhat clearer answers than we can give in say Illinois, some nuance still remains.
Take no-hire clauses, which bar employees from soliciting co-workers for a reasonable period of time post-employment. Those are often far less controversial than non-competes and customer non-solicitation covenants because they don't really tend to limit one from working. Except, though, recruiters.
Recruiters are basically salespersons, but they specialize in placing people (sometimes consultants, sometimes other employees) with clients. Their relationships, which restrictive covenants try to protect, thus cross over into two different areas of the distribution chain. And so recruiters more than any group of employees feel restrained by no-hire clauses.
The California courts haven't been as troubled by no-hire clauses as the more common and restrictive form of post-employment covenants, with some courts allowing them. But that rule now appears in doubt after AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. There, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held void under Section 16600 a garden-variety no-hire clause in the travel nurse staffing business.
The employees impacted by the no-hire were travel nurse recruiters of AMN Healthcare, who had signed no-hire clauses of either a year or 18 months that limited their ability to solicit co-workers to leave AMN. Those recruiters then left and contacted various travel nurses, who typically were placed at health care facilities on 13-week assignments.
The Court of Appeal found the no-hire clauses void as a matter of law, thus casting doubt about older case that lawyers typically relied upon to enforce those clauses. The gist is that those older cases pre-dated a significant Supreme Court of California decision in a case called Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, which generally disapproved of a narrow-restraint exception to Section 16600. As a result of Edwards, Section 16600 still applied when a post-employment covenant restricts only a limited part of an employee's profession, such as solicitation of clients.
The Court of Appeal in AMN Healthcare found Edwards controlling. As applied to the travel nurse recruiter scenario, the court had little trouble concluding that the no-hire clause was a void restraint. In particular, it focused on the nature of the recruiting business (which makes no-hire clauses much more significant than in other industries), the impact on recruiters' compensation if restrained from soliciting nurses for work, and the temporary nature of the travel-nurse assignments.
Despite all that, it's hard not to see AMN Healthcare as a significant shift in how courts evaluate no-hire clauses. A copy of the decision is available here.