Representative Kevin Levitas’s HB 173 is headed for another hearing on Monday at the Georgia Capitol.  It may be up for a vote before the full Judiciary Committee as soon as Tuesday, February 17, 2009.  

Subcommittee chairman Representative Mike Jacobs led the latest hearing on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.  The subcommittee heard support for the bill from Reed Elsevier, Inc.
Continue Reading Georgia’s Restrictive Covenant Legislation Moves Towards A Vote

The recent travails of newly hired Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin provide some interesting parallels to issues faced by a host of employers. As the penultimate paragraph of this piece from’s Andy Staples sets forth, Tennessee raided the coaching staffs of conference rivals Alabama and South Carolina to hire David Reaves and Lance Thompson, respectively. According to Staples, Reaves immediately

Continue Reading Restrictive Covenant Lessons from…College Football Recruiting?

 By Robert Milligan, Kurt Kappes and James McNairy

The California Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP  today and held that employee non-competition agreements are invalid, even if narrowly drawn, unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. 

In doing so, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception, which excepted the prohibition

Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Rejects The Ninth Circuit’s Narrow Restraint Exception To California’s Prohibition On Employee Non-Competition Agreements In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP

By Robert Milligan and Summer Associate Justin de Herrera

In City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal.App.4th 1477, (June 17, 2008), a California appellate court recently rejected a police officer’s claim that a provision in his employment contract requiring him to reimburse the City of Oakland for his training expenses constituted an illegal covenant not to compete in violation

Continue Reading California Court Finds That Contract Provision Requiring Departing Police Officer To Reimburse City For Training Expenses Does Not Violate Business and Professions Code Section 16600.