United States: Are Employee "No-Hire" And Non-Solicitation Provisions Enforceable Under California Law?

Trade Secret Report -- August 2007

In most states, noncompetition agreements are enforceable if reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. California, however, has a long standing public policy generally prohibiting noncompetition agreements. This policy is embodied in California Business & Professions Code section 16600 ("Section 16600"). Limited exceptions are set forth in subsequent sections of the California Business & Professions Code, such as the "sale of business" exception in Section 16601.

In VL Systems v. Unisen, Inc.,[1] the California Court of Appeal found that an employee no-hire provision in a business-to-business computer consulting agreement was overbroad and unenforceable. The holding was based in part on the public policy established by Section 16600. As drafted, the no-hire clause in the consulting agreement purported to prohibited the client from hiring: (1) employees of the consulting company that did not provide any consulting services to the client; and (2) individuals that were hired by the consulting company after its engagement by the client ended.

The Court of Appeal, however, was careful to point out that its decision was limited to the facts of the case, and that a "more narrowly drawn clause limited to soliciting employees who had actually performed work for the client might pass muster." [2]

Below is a summary of the facts and analysis set forth in the VL Systems case, and other relevant California cases addressing employee no-hire and non-solicitation clauses.

Case Background

In VL Systems, Star Trac Strength ("Star Trac") engaged VL Systems ("VLS") to provide approximately 16 hours of computer consulting services. The contract between the parties included the following no-hire provision:

BUYER WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO HIRE SELLER’S PERSONNEL. Any hiring, or offer of employment entitles, but does not require VL Systems, Inc. to immediately cancel the performance period of this agreement. If, during the term of, or within (12) months after the termination of the performance period of this agreement, buyer hires directly, or indirectly contracts with any of seller’s personnel for the performance of systems engineering and/or related services hereunder, BUYER AGREES TO PAY TO THE SELLER SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OF EITHER THE NEW ANNUAL COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO SUCH PERSONNEL or the fees paid to, or in favor of such personnel for one (1) year after such personnel separates from service with seller, which ever is applicable, as liquidated damages. [3]

After the contract was completed, Star Trac hired a VLS employee (David Rohnow), who had been working for VLS for a total of 22 weeks as a senior engineer. Rohnow was hired following his response to Star Trac’s internet job ad. Rohnow did not provide any services to Star Trac during the term of the consulting agreement. In fact, VLS had only hired Rohnow after its contract with Star Trac had been completed. Nevertheless, VLS sent Star Trac a bill for $60,000 pursuant to the no-hire provision, which Star Trac declined to pay.

Court Action

VLS subsequently filed a lawsuit against Star Trac for breach of the consulting agreement, and the trial court found that the no-hire provision was enforceable. However, the trial court only awarded a portion of the liquidated damages based on the number of months Rohnow had been with VLS.

The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the no-hire provision was unenforceable in light of the public policy established by Section 16600. The Court of Appeal found that the liquidated damages provision would have effectively precluded Star Trac from hiring Rohnow, and thus, his opportunity to pursue employment where he chose would be unlawfully curtailed by the no-hire agreement. The Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he interest of the employee in his own mobility and betterment are deemed paramount to the competitive interests of the employers, where neither the employee nor his new employer has committed any illegal act accompanying the employment change." [4]

The court pointed out that this was "not a case where the happy client of a consulting firm attempts to poach an employee." [5] In fact, the court speculated that "it appears to be a coincidence that VLS had performed recent work for Star Trac." [6]

Distinguishing the impact of a non-solicitation provision from a no-hire provision, the court noted that under a non-solicit clause an employee only loses the option of being contacted first by the company, but he/she is not restrained from being employed by the company as occurs with a no-hire clause.

VL Systems Distinguishes Webb

In reaching its decision, the VL Systems Court distinguished its holding from Webb v. Westside District Hospital, [7] in which the California Court of Appeal upheld a liquidated damages provision between a hospital and physician placement agency. The contract between the parties in Webb required payment of a fee if the hospital hired a physician placed with it by the agency within a limited amount of time. The agreement in Webb provided:

Hospital acknowledges that [Webb] will recruit, train, and contract with other physicians for the [emergency room] Department Service and this is a costly and time-consuming endeavor. Should Hospital wish within two (2) years following the termination of this Agreement – measured from the last extension thereof – to directly or indirectly employ any physician who shall have contracted with [Webb] for Department service, Hospital shall first pay [Webb] the sum of $30,000 per physician, which accurately reflects the reasonable value of [Webb’s] time and costs. [8]

Unlike the no-hire provision at issue in VL Systems, the provision in Webb applied solely to employees that had actually been provided to the hospital by the plaintiff. Further, the hospital’s negotiators conceded that the sum in the agreement was "fair and reasonable" [9] given that Webb would be unable to recoup the costs incurred in recruiting the physicians if the contract was prematurely terminated. For this reason, and because the hospital would have had to expend approximately the same amount to obtain physicians through a placement agency, the Court of Appeal in Webb upheld the agreement as necessary to protect the placement agency from "unfair exploitation" [10] of labor.

VL Systems Distinguishes Loral

The VL Systems Court also distinguished its decision from Loral Corp. v. Moyes. [11] In Loral, the California Court of Appeal upheld Loral’s agreement with a terminated employee providing that, in exchange for various severance benefits, Moyes (the terminated employee) would:

[N]ot now or in the future disrupt, damage, impair or interfere with the business of Conic Corporation, or its TerraCom Division [subsidiaries of Loral Corp.] whether by way of interfering with or raiding its employees, disrupting its relationships with customers, agents, representatives or vendors, or otherwise. [12]

After leaving Loral, Moyes was hired as President of Aydin Corporation. He then solicited and hired two important TerraCom employees. In addition, numerous other TerraCom employees were interviewed and offered employment by Moyes, causing TerraCom to expend over $400,000 recruiting their successors.

In support of its finding that the no-raiding provision was enforceable, the Court of Appeal noted that while section 16600 invalidates agreements that attempt to prevent an ex-employee from working for competitors, it "does not necessarily affect an agreement delimiting how he can compete." [13] (emphasis added) It reasoned that since the no-raiding provision does not restrain an individual’s right to engage in his profession any more than do agreements prohibiting trade secret disclosure or customer solicitation, the provision does not contravene the public policy underlying section 16600.

As in VL Systems, the Loral court stressed the difference between broad no-hire agreements and those that merely prohibit solicitation. It indicated that the latter are more palatable because they only marginally impinge on the opportunities available to employees.

Relevance Of Strategix

Although not mentioned by the court in VL Systems, Strategix v. Infocrossing West, [14] is also relevant to the discussion concerning the scope of an employee non-solicitation clause that is enforceable under California law. [15] There, the court addressed the enforceability of a non-solicitation of customers and employees provision in the context of a sale of a business. The case provides an example of an employee non-solicitation provision that (even though less onerous than a no-hire provision and in the sale of business context) was found to be unenforceable because it was not narrowly tailored.

The case arose from Strategix’s sale of its goodwill and most of its assets to Infocrossing. The parties entered into an agreement that barred Strategix from soliciting all of Infocrossing’s employees or customers for one year. Issues subsequently arose concerning the purchase, and Strategix sued Infocrossing asserting claims that included breach of contract. In response, Infocrossing sued Strategix for breaching the non-solicitation agreement signed in connection with the sale transaction. Infocrossing also moved for and obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining Strategix from soliciting any of Infocrossing’s customers and employees.

Strategix appealed the issuance of the preliminary injunction arguing that the non-solicitation agreement was unenforceable under Section 16600. Infocrossing argued that the non-solicitation agreement was enforceable because it fell within the sale of business exception provided in Section 16601. The Court of Appeal agreed with Strategix.

The Court of Appeal found Infocrossing’s non-solicitation agreement unenforceable because the non-solicitation covenant was not tied directly to the assets of Strategix’s business. The court focused on the fact that the covenant barred Strategix from soliciting all of Infocrossing’s employees and customers, rather than only the former employees and customers of Strategix – the "sold business." It reasoned a restriction of this nature went beyond the restraints permitted by Section 16601:

[C]ourts may enforce nonsolicitation covenants barring the seller from soliciting the sold business’s employees and customers. These covenants prevent the seller from unfairly depriving the buyer of the full value of its acquisition, including goodwill. The sold business’s goodwill is the "expectation of . . . that patronage which has become an asset of the business . . . . On the other hand, nonsolicitation covenants barring a seller from soliciting all employees and customers of the buyer, even those who were not former employees or customers of the sold business, extend their anticompetitive reach beyond "the business so sold." They do more than ensure that the buyer receives the full value of the business it bought, whose goodwill does not include "the patronage of the general public." [16]

Further, the Court of Appeal expressed concern that the non-solicitation covenant failed to give Strategix adequate notice of what was prohibited because Strategix would likely not know which customers and employees pertained to Infocrossing’s business. The Court of Appeal, however, made it clear that the non-solicitation covenant would have been enforceable if it were limited to prohibiting Strategix from soliciting only its own former employees and customers.


Based on the foregoing authorities, companies should carefully review the scope of any no-hire and employee non-solicitation provisions that they use in the employment or business-to-business context. Potential agreements to be reviewed include, Employment Agreements, Proprietary Information Agreements, Separation and Severance Agreements, Outsourcing Agreements, Consulting Agreements, Pre-Merger Confidentiality Agreements, Merger and Acquisition Agreements, and Non-Competition Agreements. The enforceability of such terms under California law will vary depending on the context of the agreement and the scope of the provision at issue.



152 Cal.App. 4th 708 (2007).


Id. at 713 n.4.


Id. at 710.


Id. at 714 (quoting Diodes, Inc. v. Frantzen, 260 Cal. App. 2d 244, 255 (1968)).


Id. at 715.




144 Cal.App. 3rd 946 (1983).


Id. at 949.


Id. at 950.


Id. at 954.


174 Cal.App.3rd 268 (1985).


Id. at 274.


Id. at 276.


142 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2006).


For a compete discussion of Strategix, see Recent Developments In California Law Regarding Noncompetition Agreements, Employment Law Commentary (Oct. 2006)


Id. at 1073.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions