Given the strong protection against competition in California, it is too risky to require employees to sign employment contracts containing these provisions. All employment contracts with workers living or working in California should be carefully monitored to ensure compliance with regulations. The problem is that all of these cases have in fact been decided to use business principles. There are no cases that support the prohibition of the UCL application, which is not covered by the Business Secrecy Act. There is also, if not another way of saying the same thing, no instructions on information that could be considered “confidential” that would not be considered trade secrets, i.e. they are valuable because they are secret. However, if you are an employer who files a complaint against employees who have left the territory and are soliciting your clients, the insulting garden holiday clauses, unlike conventional non-competition agreements, are not many of the principles underlying the California public policy argument against the application of non-compete policy agreements. For example, the garden leave clause does not affect the viability of the worker, as he or she is fully compensated by benefits during the period of gardening leave. If the garden leave clause is effectively applied with key administrators, salespeople and technicians, who are theoretically more demanding and generally have more bargaining power than ordinary workers, the argument that restrictive confederation is a product of unequal bargaining power becomes less restrictive. In addition, the employer is motivated to minimize garden leave because of its cost, which runs counter to the motivation of non-competitors to extend them for as long as possible. 54 While many employers take appropriate action at the beginning of the employment relationship by entering into trade secrets and confidentiality agreements, employers must also ensure that at the end of the employment relationship they take similar steps to avoid the misuse of trade secrets.
An employer should at least monitor and analyze the use of electronic systems such as. B of his work computer, his email system and readers or mobile devices by an outgoing employee. An exit interview should also be conducted (see second article of this take 5 for an in-depth discussion of exit interviews). The Courtesy court overturned the Court`s decision that rejected the injunction and found that the client list was a protective trade secret under UTSA and unfair competition. In this conclusion, the court found, with a good authorization, that UTSA and the case law “find that a list of clients obtained with considerable time, cost and cost is a protective trade secret.” (Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc.