Court of Appeal: Federal OSHA preempts Unfair Competition Claims ( B&P Section 17200)

California's unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, is quite broad.  Plaintiffs can bring claims for injunctive relief and restitution for just about anything they can prove is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

California’s “UCL defines ‘unfair competition’ as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’ [Citation.] By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business act or practice (ibid.), the UCL ‘“ borrows”‘ rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable.”

The District Attorney of a jurisdiction also may use another section of the UCL, section 17204, to collect statutory penalties; private litigants cannot.  Such penalties are in addition to whatever other remedies are available.

Per the Court of Appeal in Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court, here's what happened:

Solus makes plastics at an Orange County manufacturing facility. In 2007, Solus installed an electric water heater intended for residential use at the facility. In March 2009, that water heater exploded, killing two workers instantly in what district attorney refers to as an “untimely and horrific death.”

As a result, Cal-OSHA investigated and fined Solus.  Because there was a death, Cal OSHA also referred the case to the district attorney, who prosecuted company officials.  But the DA also brought a civil action for penalties under the UCL. 

The company argued that federal OSHA preempts the UCL claim.  Federal OSHA preempts all workplace safety laws.  However, the Secretary of Labor may approve a state plan to substitute for the federal enforcement scheme, under certain conditions.

The problem for the DA is that the Secretary of Labor did not consider or approve private enforcement under the UCL by a DA.  Rather, it approved the Cal OSHA enforcement scheme.  Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the DA could not maintain a civil claim for penalties under the UCL based on a workplace safety violation subject to Cal OSHA's jurisdiction.

Here's the money quote:

In light of our determination that state regulation of workplace safety standards is explicitly preempted by federal law under the OSH Act, and that consequently California is entitled to exercise its regulatory power only in accordance with the terms of its federally approved workplace safety plan, we conclude the district attorney cannot presently rely on the UCL to provide an additional means of penalizing an employer for its violation of workplace safety standards.

So, the Secretary of Labor would have to approve a modification to the California OSH law.  I imagine that could occur if California acts to make the change and submits it to our current administration. But we'll have to wait and see.

The opinion in Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court is here.

Court of Appeal Strikes Down Non-Compete Related to Sale of Business

Maas sold his company, Crave, to Handleman.  As part of the sale transaction, Maas signed a stock purchase agreement that prohibited Maas from competing with Handleman for three years from the sale.

Maas became a Handleman employee. He also signed an employment agreement with Handleman that contained another non-compete, barring him from competing for one year from the termination of his new employment with Handleman or from the expiration of the three-year non-compete, whichever came first.  That employment agreement also contained a non-solicitation clause.

Maas stayed with Handleman three years, thereby satisfying the non-compete in the purchase agreement.  But then he went to work for a new company, violating the non-compete in his employment contract. Handleman sued, claiming that the one-year non-compete was part of the sale transaction and was in consideration for the "good will" value of Crave.

Fillpoint bought the Crave assets from Handleman and sued Maas and others for violating the non-compete agreement.

Most people who read this blog know that most non-competition agreements are unenforceable under California law. But there are exceptions.  One exception applies to the sale of a business to protect the buyer.  See Business and Prof. Code Section 16601.

The court of appeal noted that the three-year covenant in the purchase agreement satisfied the exception contained in Section 16601, as it protected Handleman's purchase of Crave.  Fillpoint, however, argued that the employment agreement's further non-compete was part of the same transaction.   The court agreed that the purchase agreement and employment agreement must be read together.  But the court struck down the employment agreement's non-competition provision.

For one thing, Fillpoint argued that the employment agreement's non-compete served a different purpose from the purchase agreement's non-compete.  The latter applied to Maas as a shareholder and the former as a Handleman employee.  The court viewed that argument as a concession that brought the non-compete outside Section 16601.  Moreover, the court decided that the employment agreement non-compete was way too broad and precluded Maas from pursuing a profession regardless of Crave's goodwill.

So, according to the court's decision in Fillpoint v. Maas, non-competes associated with the sale of a business cannot have a "latent tail" that becomes effective years after the sale.   The opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Expands Wrongful Discharge Law

OK, so let's say an employee has a non-compete agreement with a former employer. After Employee is hired by new employer, the former employer sends a "cease and desist" letter to the new employer. The new employer, fearling litigation, fires the employee. Employee sues new employer for wrongful discharge?!

Yep. I know....#@^!%.

In 2003, Silguero began employment with Floor Seal Technology, Inc. as a sales representative. In August 2007, FST threatened Silguero with termination unless she signed a confidentiality agreement. The agreement prohibited her from sales activities for 18 months following either departure or termination. (A Non-compete). FST terminated Silguero's employment in October 2007.

Shortly therafter, Silguero was hired by with Creteguard. But FST contacted Creteguard and requested enforcement of the non-compete.

In November 2007, Creteguard's chief executive officer, Thomas Nucum, did not call me. Instead, he informed Silguero in writing that "although we believe that non-compete clauses are not legally enforceable here in California, [Creteguard] would like to keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry." Nice.

Silguero argued the noncompetition agreement enforced by Creteguard was void pursuant to section 16600, that no statutory exception to section 16600 applied, and that Creteguard's enforcement violated public policy.

The Court of Appeal agreed:

The complaint in this case alleges an ―understanding‖ between Creteguard and FST pursuant to which Creteguard would honor FST‘s noncompetition agreement. Creteguard admitted in writing that it entered into this understanding with FST, ―although [Creteguard] believe[d] that non-compete clauses are not legally enforceable here in California,‖ because Creteguard ―would like to keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry. This alleged understanding is tantamount to a no-hire agreement.

No hire agreements are illegal too.

This case is Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Another Non-Solicit Bites the Dust

The Court of Appeal took up a complex lawsuit involving claims and cross-claims of unfair competition, including strong agreements not to compete or solicit and choices of law and forum clauses. The Court expanded on the decision this summer in The Retirement Group v. Galante, posted here.

Basically, Dowell, other employees and their new employer, St. Jude, sued Biosense Webster, which was attempting to enforce a non-compete agreement, which included broad non-solicitation clauses. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreements were unenforceable. Here is some language from the opinion:

Biosense contends that the clauses are valid because they were tailored to protect trade secrets or confidential information, and as such satisfy the so-called trade secret exception, citing cases such as Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1429–1430; Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1462; Metro Traffic, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 860; and American Paper & Packaging Products, Inc. v. Kirgan (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1322. Plaintiffs counter that in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision of Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th 937, a common law trade secret exception no longer exists.The Court in Edwards concluded that section 16600 “prohibits employee noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception.” (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 942.) . . . .

* * *

Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition. ...

Biosense argues that the clauses in the agreements are narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information because they are “tethered” to the use of confidential information, and are triggered only when the former employee’s services for a competitor implicate the use of confidential information. As such, to the extent that no confidential information was disclosed or made known to Dowell and Chapman during their employment with Biosense, the noncompete clause would never be triggered. But this argument ignores the broad wording of the agreements. The noncompete clause prohibits an employee from rendering services, directly or indirectly, to a competitor where those services could enhance the use or marketability of a conflicting product through the use of confidential information to which the employee had access at Biosense. “Confidential information” is broadly
defined as information disclosed to or known by the employee, including such
information as the number or location of sales representatives, the names of customers, customer preferences, needs, requirements, purchasing histories or
other customer-specific information. Given such an inclusive and broad list of confidential information, it seems nearly impossible that employees like Dowell and Chapman, who worked directly with customers, would not have possession of such information. The prohibition here is not unlike the noncompete clause found facially invalid by the court in D’Sa, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 930. . . . .

We also reject the argument of Biosense that the nonsolicitation clause is narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information. The same argument was rejected by the Galante court, which noted: “However, Edwards rejected the claim that antisolicitation clauses could be exempt from section 16600 if the conduct covered by such clauses fell within the ‘narrow-restraint’ exception discussed in Campbell (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 948–950), and we decline TRG’s implicit invitation to engraft that exception onto this case.” (Galante, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241.) Moreover, the clause at issue here goes well beyond prohibiting active solicitation by prohibiting departing employees from selling or rendering any services to Biosense customers or directly or indirectly assisting others to do so—even if it is the customer who solicits the former employee. (See
Morris v. Harris (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [invalidating restraint that
prohibited employee from providing services to former customers who sought him
out without any solicitation].)

St. Jude, though, lost on its attempt to enjoin Biosense from enforcing its non-compete agreement against all employees in California. The court said that St. Jude had no standing under the UCL to enforce an injunction in favor of plaintiffs not before the court.

Biosense cross-claimed against St. Jude for "raiding" by hiring Dowell and other employees. The Court of Appeal again affirmed summary judgment against Biosense, holding there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by St. Jude, which by default has the right to hire away St. Jude employees.

Biosense argued St. Jude used similar agreements to prevent competition by its own former employees. Therefore, Biosense reasoned, St. Jude came into court with "unclean hands." No sale. St. Jude's alleged unfair practices with respect to their own employees did not go to the heart of the matter with respect to Dowell's suit against Biosense. Therefore, unclean hands did not apply.

So, lots to read. Bottom line, though, is that a non-solicit probably is not going to be enforced except as a remedy for trade secret violations, not as a prophylactic measure where there is no finding of actual or threatened misappropriation under the UTSA. The agreement here was too broad, but there does not seem to be much room left for clauses that prohibit solicitation merely because an employee is exposed to "confidential" information and might use them some day.

The case is Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. and the opinion is here.

No More Non-Solicits?

Looks that way. Mostly. The Court of Appeal held in The Retirement Group v. Galante, opinion here, that contractual agreements not to solicit customers are not enforceable because of California's unfair competition statute, Bus. and Prof. Code section 16600.

TRG sued a bunch of ex-employees for stealing trade secrets and violating a non-solicitation agreement. TRG obtained a preliminary injunction and the employees appealed. The Court of Appeal in essence held that if a former employer proves misuse of trade secrets under the Trade Secrets Act or Unfair Competition Law, the former employee may be enjoined from misusing those trade secrets. But no court can enjoin a non-solicitation clause merely because it appears in an agreement. Here is the money quote:

We distill from the foregoing cases that section 16600 bars a court from specifically enforcing (by way of injunctive relief) a contractual clause purporting to ban a former employee from soliciting former customers to transfer their business away from the former employer to the employee's new business, but a court may enjoin tortious conduct (as violative of either the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and/or the Unfair Competition Law) by banning the former employee from using trade secret information to identify existing customers, to facilitate the solicitation of such customers, or to otherwise unfairly compete with the former employer. Viewed in this light, therefore, the conduct is enjoinable not because it falls within a judicially-created "exception" to section 16600's ban on contractual nonsolicitation clauses, but is instead enjoinable because it is wrongful independent of any contractual undertaking.

Recent decisions have said as much, albeit less concisely. The point is that a non-solicitation agreement is now legally unnecessary to create substantive rights because the Trade Secret Act does not require such an agreement for an employer to come within its provisions. However, a non-solicitation clause, which is usually found in a confidentiality agreement, may be part of the evidence showing that the employer takes reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of trade secrets. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to abandon such contractual provisions.
At the same time, it remains to be seen whether such clauses will be attacked as "overreaching" and, therefore, unfair competition.

Court of Appeal Upholds Attorney's Fees Award in Bad Faith Trade Secrets Litigation

If you sue a former employee for violating the Trade Secrets Act, you have to have a case. That means you have, at minimum, (1) a bona fide trade secret and (2) evidence of actual or threatened "misappropriation" of the trade secret. If you are missing evidence of one or more elements, and you're just suing a competitor, it can be an expensive mistake. That's what FLIR Systems, Inc. found out when it sued former employees who were trying to set up a competing business.

Here are the facts from the opinion:

Indigo manufactures and sells microbolometers. A microbolometer is a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision, and thermal imaging. A significant portion of Indigo's technology was created by respondent William Parrish. FLIR manufactures and sells infrared cameras, night vision, and thermal imaging systems that use microbolometers. In 2004, FLIR purchased Indigo for approximately $185 million, acquiring Indigo's patents, technology, and intellectual property. Parish and Fitzgibbons were shareholders and officers of Indigo before the company was sold.
After the sale, they continued working at Indigo.

In 2005, respondents decided to start a new company to mass produce bolometers
and gave notice that they would quit Indigo on or about January 6, 2006. The new company was based on a business plan (Thermicon) developed by Fitzgibbons in 1998 and 1999 when he was self-employed.

Before leaving Indigo, respondents discussed allowing appellants to participate in
Thermicon. Respondents proposed outsourcing bolometer production to a third party. The production startup time would be quick, assuming respondents could acquire technology licenses and intellectual property from a third party. Respondents offered FLIR a non-controlling interest in Thermicon. FLIR rejected the offer and wished respondents success in the new endeavor.

In early 2006, respondents entered into negotiations with Raytheon Company to acquire licensing, technology, and manufacturing facilities for Thermicon. Respondents assured appellants they would not misappropriate Indigo's trade secrets and that the new company would use an intellectual property filter similar to the one used at Indigo to prevent the misuse of trade secrets.

Fearful that the new business would undermine FLIR's market, appellants sued for
injunctive relief and damages on June 15, 2006. The action was premised on the theory that respondents could not mass produce low-cost microbolometers based on the Thermicon time line without misappropriating trade secrets.

Upon learning of the lawsuit, Raytheon Company terminated business discussions with respondents. On August 15, 2006, respondents advised appellants that they
were not going forward with the new business.

But FLIR sought an injunction against its former employees precluding them from setting up a new business in which they would engage in the same business as FLIR. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, the injunction claim at least implicitly was based on the theory that former employees would "inevitably" use or disclose trade secrets in setting up a new venture. Unfortunately for FLIR, the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not recognized in California.

So, this case is about whether attorney's fees should be awarded in favor of the former employees. The fees were over $1 million, with over $200k more in costs.

In trade secret cases, the defendant can recover fees if the court in its discretion finds the plaintiff prosecuted a claim in bad faith. The standard for bad faith requires proof of two elements: "(1) objective speciousness of the claim, and (2) subjective bad faith in bringing or maintaining the action, i.e., for an improper purpose. "

Here, the "objective speciousness" was premising the action on the inevitable disclosure doctrine. the "subjective bad faith" was established by evidence that FLIR brought the claim to stop a potential competitor from opening up shop. The court of appeal discussed a number of additional factors that supported bad faith, including a settlement demand with irrelevant conditions, the failure to dismiss the claim once it was obvious it lacked merit, and a number of other facts that should be guidance for the bar.

The case is FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court LOVES litigation

The California Supreme Court continued its streak of pro-litigation decisions today. What am I talking about? The recent "Tobacco Cases," - expanding the availability of unfair business practice class actions, the anti-arbitration decisions, the pro-class action certification opinions, the Court's common theme lately seems to be - lawsuits good! Too bad the courts are struggling for funds to hear all these cases, there are few disincentives to bring frivolous litigation, and businesses already on shaky financial ground can't afford to be in court. OK, down off the soapbox.

Anyway, in this most recent installment, the California high court considered certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, including whether proof of intentional discrimination is a required element of claims brought under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Act is the civil rights law that protects the public from discrimination in places of public accommodation. It's the principal state law used in disability access cases. Money damages are available for violations, making the Unruh Act more interesting than laws permitting only injunctions.

This is not an employment law case per se. But many employers operate businesses that are subject to the Unruh Act (retail, restaurants hospitals, etc.) . So, I thought I would mention this case.

The Unruh Act says that a violation of Title III of the ADA (prohibiting discriminating in public accommodations by failure to make facilities accessible) is also a violation of the Unruh Act. The Court decided that because the ADA does not require intentional discrimination in access cases, neither did the Unruh Act. (The rest of the Unruh Act, prohibiting discrimination on a variety of bases, does require intentional discrimination, though, which is why the Supreme Court had to decide the case).

So, disability access litigation is alive and well! The case is Munson v. Del Taco, and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Says "no" to "Limited" Non-Compete Agreements, but "yes" to Broad Releases

The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen - read here -

The Court flatly rejected the "limited" or "narrow" non-competition agreement as unlawful under Bus. and Prof. Code section 16600. The court said that California's unfair competition law bans all non-compete agreements, even when they only restrict the employee's right to work for a limited number of employers. So, bid a sad goodbye to Ninth Circuit cases recognizing the "limited" non-compete such as International Business Machines Corp. v. Bajorek (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1033 and General Commercial Packaging v. TPS Package (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3d 1131.

Below the fold, but perhaps more importantly, the court upheld a release that covered "any and all" claims. The lower court held that the release was invalid because it included unwaivable claims such as for reimbursement of expenses under Lab. Code section 2802. The court said that general release language such as at issue in Edwards impliedly did not include the release of claims that are not capable of being released:

We apply this rule in holding that a contract provision releasing “any and all” claims, such as that used in the TONC in the present case, does not encompass nonwaivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of section Labor Code 2802. In so holding, we interpret the TONC such that it does not violate Labor Code section 2804. As a consequence, the TONC is neither unlawful nor null and void.

So, that's really good news for those of us employment lawyers who don't carve out all unwaivable claims from our releases.

DGV

Court of Appeal Rejects Trade Secrets Claim

The Court of Appeal in Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. Tea Systems Corp. undertook a detailed analysis of Yield's claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, asserted against a former employee. The court upheld the trial court's conclusions that Yield had failed to establish (1) the misappropriated items were properly defined as "trade secrets" because there was no independent economic value associated with their secrecy (2) damages. The court also upheld the trial court's decision in favor of the defense on a number of other claims, including breach of contract, fraud, and unfair competition. This case provides a useful roadmap to litigants attempting to establish trade secrets status.

DGV

"No-Hire" Agreement Is Unenforceable in California

Consultant firms often assign consultants to work closely with clients. Sometimes consultant companies include "no hire" agreements, under which the customer is precluded from hiring consultant's employees for a period of time. In VL Systems, Inc. v. Unisen, Inc., the court of appeal held that such a no-hire agreement was unenforceable in California as an illegal non-compete. The court left open the possibility that a more narrow agreement might be enforceable. However, the fact that the consultant company's agreement made it illegal to hire any of the consultant's employees - even ones never assigned to work for the customer - rendered the agreement overly broad and unenforceable.

DGV

Compete, Yes, But Don't Breach Duty of Loyalty

Competition is favored in California. But agents (including employees) cannot divert customers to another employer while still in an agency / employee relationship. Employees are free to leave, but while they remain employed, they owe a duty of loyalty to their employers. The Court of Appeal upheld a preliminary injunction where a business seller, retained as "managing agents" of the sold business, breached the duty of loyalty by diverting business to a third party. The case is Huong Que v. Luu.

DGV

9th Circuit: California Law Prohibits Hiring Away "For Cause" Employees

CRST is a trucking company. It had one-year contracts with new employees. CRST provided significant training to the new employees and wanted them to remain employed so they got their money's worth. CRST limited its right to terminate the employees' employment during the one-year initial agreement. In exchange, if the employees left voluntarily within the year, they refunded training costs.

Werner hired away CRST employees while they were under contract. CRST sued Werner for interference with CRST's contracts (of which Werner was aware). The Ninth Circuit held that the complaint stated a cause of action under California law governing interference with contract, and unfair business practices under California's unfair competition law. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enterprises.

For employers willing to forgo "at will" employment, this case may effectively protect their investment in training and recruiting workers. The Court did not address any of Werner's potential defenses, including the privilege of competition under California law. It could be this case is another option for employers in California who cannot tie employees via non-competition agreements. Maybe employers can use renewable three-month contracts instead, so bad employees may be discharged at the end of the three-month period? The case probably has no effect when the employee chooses to leave, however. We'll see.