April 5, 2020

April 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Employee Required to Challenge Non-Compete Clause in Indiana

Despite California’s prohibition against non-compete agreements, a federal court in the Eastern District of California recently ruled that a California resident may be subject to the non-compete covenant in his employment agreement due to a provision in the agreement identifying Indiana as the parties’ choice of forum and that state’s law as the parties’ choice of law.  The lawsuit, Scales v. Badger Daylighting Corp. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00222-DAD-JLT), was (prior to removal to federal court) filed in California state court by the employee, Daniel Scales, after his employer, Badger Daylighting Corp., first filed a breach of contract action against Scales in Indiana state court.

Badger’s Indiana lawsuit claims that Scales violated the non-compete clause in his employment agreement when he quit his employment with Badger in California and began working for one of the hydrovac excavation company’s California competitors. Scales’ employment agreement contains Indiana choice of law and choice-of-forum clauses.  Trial for the Indiana action is set for January 23, 2018.

In Scales’ later-filed California action, he seeks a declaratory judgment “that [his] respective Non-Competition Agreement [is] an unlawful and unenforceable restraint of trade, in violation of section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.” Badger removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of California based on diversity of citizenship and immediately filed a motion to dismiss based on the agreement’s Indiana forum-selection clause.

U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd granted Badger’s motion to dismiss on June 1, 2017, holding that the forum-selection clause was valid because it did not deprive Scales of his day in court and it did not contravene public policy.  Judge Drozd reasoned that Scales has the financial means and opportunity to challenge the non-compete provisions of the employment agreement in the matter pending in Indiana state court – thus consigning Scales to the Indiana court for a determination of the enforceability of the non-compete.

Judge Drozd also rejected Scales’ argument that enforcing the forum-selection clause would violate recently enacted California Labor Code § 925.  The new law (which became effective this year) provides that an employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California to agree to a provision that would either: (1) require the employee to adjudicate a claim outside of California that arose in California; or (2) deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.  The statute also requires that a provision of a contract that violates § 925 is “voidable by the employee” and “the matter shall be adjudicated in California.” The recently enacted law also awards attorneys’ fees to employees seeking its protection. However, Judge Drozd correctly noted that § 925 applies only to contracts “entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.” Scales signed his employment agreement in August 2014, and, therefore, is not covered by the protections of § 925.

Although non-California forum-selection clauses may sometimes save a non-compete from near-certain-death before a California court, Judge Drozd recognized that going forward, § 925 will generally preclude the enforcement of forum-selection clauses contained in agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2017, thus defeating out-of-state employers’ attempts to evade California’s non-compete restrictions.

Employers should review their employment agreements going forward to ensure compliance with § 925 and can begin by visiting the helpful FAQ we published earlier this year regarding the new law.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Anthony J Oncidi, Employment Attorney, Proskauer Rose Law Firm
Partner

Anthony J. Oncidi heads the Labor & Employment Law Group in the Los Angeles office. Tony represents employers and management in all aspects of labor relations and employment law, including litigation and preventive counseling, wage and hour matters, including class actions, wrongful termination, employee discipline, Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, executive employment contract disputes, sexual harassment training and investigations, workplace violence, drug testing and privacy issues, Sarbanes-Oxley claims and employee raiding and trade secret protection....

310-284-5690
Pietro Deserio, Labor, Employment Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm
Associate

Pietro A. Deserio is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. Pietro's practice concentrates on all aspects of labor and employment law. His employment litigation practice in state and federal courts includes class and collective actions and defending claims of discrimination, harassment, breach of contract and violations of wage and hour laws. He is also a member of the Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Group, representing clients in sensitive and significant trade secret and employment matters.

Pietro litigates and counsels clients on matters involving employee movement between competitors, with a focus on the enforceability of restrictive covenants, including:

  • Non-competition
  • Customer non-solicitation
  • Employee non-solicitation
  • Non-disclosure agreements
  • Confidentiality
  • Incentive compensation arrangements
  • Clawback and other remedial provisions
  • International enforcement issues
  • Judicial modification (blue-penciling) of agreements

 

Before joining Proskauer’s Labor and Employment Group in California, Pietro gained valuable experience as an associate in the Firm’s Litigation Department in New York, where his practice included white-collar criminal defense and corporate investigations. He also worked on complex commercial litigation matters at both the state and federal levels that included false advertising, contract and business torts and insurance coverage. Pietro maintains an active pro bono practice, representing individuals charged with various misdemeanors and felonies. He has also partnered with the Legal Aid Society to represent individuals seeking to file conditional sealing motions.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Pietro served in the State Counsel Division of the New York State Office of the Attorney General, as part of both the Litigation Bureau and the Sex Offender Management Bureau.

While at University of Pennsylvania Law School, Pietro completed an externship at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, for which he prosecuted felonies and misdemeanors in the Municipal Court Unit. In addition, he completed a dual-degree program with the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Criminology, for which he was awarded a Master of Science degree.

310.284.4522