An employer that wants to protect confidential information from walking out the door with former employees knows to avoid California, a place notoriously hostile to agreements that limit former employees mobility. Alas, California has just made it harder to avoid California. <\/p>\n
Suppose you are a nationwide employer that, say, designs and makes digital technology or services the specialty chemical needs of your business partnerseither of which would involve highly confidential, proprietary information. Lets also say that, if your technical information or customer lists fell into the hands of competitors, or walked out the front door with a departing employee, that loss could cause irreparable competitive harm. And finally, lets say that youre a smart employer, and you use various forms of restrictive covenantsnoncompetes, non-solicitation agreements, and nondisclosure agreementsto protect your competitive lifeblood. Good work: every stateeven California, which is viewed in popular mythology as a restrictive-covenant-free landrecognizes that some employer information deserves protection. <\/p>\n
Mark Konkel is a Labor and Employment partner in Kelley Dryes New York office. He guides and protects employers in all aspects of... <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original post: <\/p>\n
The Golden State's New Golden Rule: Section 925 Adds Another Hurdle To Protecting Business Information - InsideCounsel<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An employer that wants to protect confidential information from walking out the door with former employees knows to avoid California, a place notoriously hostile to agreements that limit former employees mobility. Alas, California has just made it harder to avoid California. Continue reading