Similarly, in Reeves v. Hanlon (2004), the California Supreme Court held that an employer of a law firm could assert a right to interference with potential economic advantage against former lawyers who left the firm and recruited staff. However, the Tribunal held that “in order to return to its convenience for the alteration of a defendant in an employment relationship, it must assert and prove that the defendant committed an unlawful act independently, that is to say. An act prohibited by a legal, legal, regulatory, customary or other norm”, which led the requested employees to leave their employment relationship. [The prohibition of debauchery clause] as a restriction on employment is not valid.” Recognizing that non-compete clauses are not valid under California law, California employers have long used provisions aimed at not being paid in their employment contracts as an alternative strategy to limit competition for workers. Today, the courts are making it clear that this circumvention is unacceptable and that non-cancellation clauses are ineligible for employees in California. Generally speaking, there are two types of debauchery prohibition agreements for employees: recruitment bans that prevent an employee from recruiting others to his or her former company; and prohibitions on debauchery in which the employee agrees not to recruit other employees of the company. Some important court decisions provide useful guidance on the applicability of these provisions. While California`s public interest in non-competitors will always be a tug-of-war, the case at least offers the potential to have a non-compete agreement with a California employee. California courts have already found that confidentiality and advertising ban agreements are not valid or enforceable.
. . .