Seyfarth Shaw LLP has released its 2017 Edition of Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law Is Different. Included within the publication is an overview of how California law is different in the areas of restrictive covenants , trade secrets, and computer fraud. For example, highlights include:
- But for a narrow exception, new law provides that a California employer cannot in an employment agreement with an employee who primarily resides and works in California require the employee to (1) adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, or (2) accept the application of substantive law other than California’s with respect to a controversy arising in California. Cal. Labor Code § 925.
- Also, although the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) provides for a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation that may be pled in California courts, case law interpreting and applying the preemptive scope of California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) may impact what state law tort claims can be pleaded in conjunction with a DTSA claim, even where no CUTSA claim is pleaded.
- Finally, in 2016, the Ninth Circuit published its opinion in United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (2016), where the court held that unequivocal revocation of computer access makes use of a password shared by an authorized system user to circumvent the revocation of a former employee’s access a crime.
Cal-Pecs provides many more useful details in the areas of areas of restrictive covenants, trade secrets, and computer fraud law. Cal-Pecs is available in an eBook to approved requestors.