Call Today: 949-569-7224
Call Today: 949-569-7224
No. Non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California. With very narrow exceptions tied to the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership or LLC, any agreement that restricts an employee from working in their profession after leaving a job is void under California law.
You signed the paperwork on your first day. You barely read it. Now you have a better offer at a competing company, and your old employer is sending letters threatening to sue if you take the job. The fear is real. The legal weight behind those threats, in California, usually is not.
California treats the right to earn a living as a public policy issue, not a contract issue. That means it does not matter what you signed, how much you were paid, or how loudly your former employer protests. If the agreement keeps you from working in your field after you leave, it is almost certainly unenforceable here.
This post walks through how California treats non-compete agreements, what the law actually says, the few exceptions that exist, what employers can still try to enforce, and what to do if you are being threatened with a lawsuit over a non-compete you signed.
California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 is the controlling statute. It says that every contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is void. Not voidable. Not subject to a reasonableness test. Void.
This is one of the strongest pro-employee statutes in the country. Most states will enforce a non-compete if it is reasonable in scope, time, and geography. California does not balance those factors. The state rejected that approach more than a century ago.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court confirmed this in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP. The court rejected any "narrow restraint" exception and made clear that Section 16600 means what it says.
In 2024, the legislature went further. Two new laws, AB 1076 and SB 699, took effect on January 1, 2024. AB 1076 made it illegal for employers to include void non-compete clauses in employment contracts at all, even if they never try to enforce them. SB 699 lets employees sue for damages and attorney's fees when an employer tries to enforce one. Employers were also required to notify current and former employees in writing by February 14, 2024 that any non-compete clauses in their contracts were void.
The message from Sacramento is hard to miss. The state is not just refusing to enforce these agreements. It is actively punishing employers who use them.
Yes, but they are narrow. Three exceptions exist, and they are tied to ownership stakes rather than ordinary employment.
The first applies to the sale of a business. If you sell your company, or sell substantially all of its goodwill, the buyer can require you to sign a non-compete tied to the geographic area where the business operates. This makes sense. A buyer paying for goodwill needs protection from the seller opening a competing shop next door.
The second applies to the dissolution of a partnership. Partners winding down a business can agree not to compete in the area where the partnership operated.
The third applies to members of a limited liability company. When an LLC dissolves or a member's interest is sold, a non-compete tied to that transaction can be enforced.
That is it. No other exceptions exist. Not for highly paid executives. Not for trade secret access. Not for employees who received special training. Not for sales reps with customer relationships. If you are an ordinary employee leaving for another job, none of these exceptions apply to you.
The fact that you signed it does not change anything. A void contract is void from the start. Your signature does not make it enforceable, and your former employer cannot enforce it just because you agreed at the time.
Many California employees signed non-compete agreements years ago because employers handed them out as part of standard onboarding paperwork. Some of those employers knew the agreements were unenforceable and used them anyway, betting that fear alone would keep employees from leaving.
That tactic still happens. It just got more expensive for the employers who try it.
Under SB 699, you can now sue your former employer for trying to enforce a void non-compete. You can recover actual damages, including lost wages from a job offer that was rescinded because of the threat, plus your attorney's fees. The law also lets you sue even if the employer who is trying to enforce the agreement is based outside California.
Yes. The ban on non-competes does not strip employers of all protection. It just forces them to use the right tools.
California employers can still enforce well-drafted confidentiality agreements. They can still sue under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act if a former employee actually takes proprietary information. They can still prevent the misuse of customer lists that qualify as trade secrets under California law.
What they cannot do is use a non-compete to keep you from working at all. The distinction matters. Protecting actual trade secrets is legal. Locking an employee out of an entire industry is not.
Non-solicitation agreements are also limited. Courts have struck down agreements that bar former employees from soliciting customers, treating them as de facto non-competes. Agreements barring the solicitation of former coworkers are generally also unenforceable after the 2008 ruling in AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare.
This used to be a gray area. Employers based in Texas, Florida, or New York would write non-competes governed by their home state's law and try to enforce them against employees who later moved to California.
SB 699 closed that door. The law now says that any non-compete that is void under California law cannot be enforced against a California employee, regardless of where it was signed or what state's law it claims to be governed by. It applies even to agreements signed before the employee moved to California.
If you signed a non-compete in another state and then took a job in California, that agreement is void here. Your new California employer cannot be sued for hiring you. You cannot be sued for taking the job. And if your old employer threatens to sue anyway, you may have a claim against them.
Take the threat seriously, but do not assume they are right. Most non-compete threats in California are bluffs that rely on the employee not knowing the law.
Here is what matters in the early stages of a dispute like this.
The faster you get accurate advice, the better your position. Employees who respond to threats on their own sometimes say things in writing that complicate the case later.
Under SB 699, the remedies are real.
You can recover actual damages, which often includes the wages you lost if a job offer was withdrawn or delayed. You can recover injunctive relief, meaning a court order telling the former employer to stop interfering with your employment. And you can recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
That last piece changed the calculus for employers. Before 2024, sending a threatening letter cost the employer almost nothing. Now it can cost them tens of thousands of dollars in fees if you have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself.
Firing or refusing to hire someone because they will not sign a void non-compete is itself a violation of California law. The 2024 amendments treat that conduct as an unlawful act, and you may have a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Generally no, at least not the way most employers write them. Customer non-solicitation clauses have been treated as restraints on trade since Edwards v. Arthur Andersen. Employee non-solicitation clauses were largely struck down in the AMN Healthcare decision. Narrow exceptions exist when the agreement is tied to genuine trade secret protection, but the default rule is non-enforcement.
No. California Labor Code Section 925 prevents employers from forcing California-based employees into out-of-state choice-of-law provisions for employment contracts. Even outside Section 925, SB 699 voids any non-compete that would be unenforceable in California, regardless of what state's law the contract names.
The duration does not matter. A non-compete that lasts one day is just as unenforceable as one that lasts five years, because Section 16600 voids the restraint itself, not just unreasonable versions of it.
Consideration does not make a void contract enforceable. Employers sometimes argue that signing bonuses, stock grants, or severance payments make the agreement binding. They do not. The underlying restraint is what the law prohibits, and money paid in exchange for it cannot rescue it.
Yes. AB 1076 made it unlawful to include void non-compete provisions in employment contracts at all. SB 699 gives employees a private right of action with attorney's fees. Even if the employer never tried to enforce the agreement, the inclusion itself may give rise to a claim.
Our California employment lawyers at Bear Republic Law represent workers who are being threatened over non-compete agreements, sued by former employers, or pushed out of jobs because of contracts that are void under state law. We litigate. We do not settle quietly when our clients deserve to win. If a former employer is standing between you and your next job, contact our California employment lawyers today.
Attorney Advertising | Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
