From:
Labor Employment Law Blog
A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal should give
employers pause before they use Californias trade secret laws to
try to stifle competition in violation of California law.ampnbsp In
the case of FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, the Court of Appeal
affirmed a decision by the trial court awarding 1,641,216.78 in
attorneysamprsquo fees and costs to two former employees who
successfully defended a trade secret action brought by their former
employer.ampnbspThe Court agreed with the trial court that the
action was filed and maintained in bad faith within the meaning of
the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. ampnbsp In this case, two
former employees of Indigo Systems Corporation ampquotIndigoampquot
left Indigo and decided to start a new company based on a
business...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
California Court of Appeal Extends Wrongful Termination Cause of Action
A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent
employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer
attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement. The
case, Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179, represents an
expansion of an employee's right to sue for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy. In this case, a sales employee signed a
non-compete agreement with her previous employer which purportedly
prohibited her from working for a competitor for 18 months post-
termination. The employee ultimately was fired, and a few months
later, found employment with Creteguard, Inc., a competitor of her
former employer. After her hire, her previous employer co...
California Court of Appeal Extends Wrongful Termination Cause of Action
A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent
employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer
attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement. The
case, Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179, represents an
expansion of an employee's right to sue for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy. In this case, a sales employee signed a
non-compete agreement with her previous employer which purportedly
prohibited her from working for a competitor for 18 months post-
termination. The employee ultimately was fired, and a few months
later, found employment with Creteguard, Inc., a competitor of her
former employer. After her hire, her previous employer co...
California Court of Appeal Extends Wrongful Termination Cause of Action
A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent
employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer
attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement. The
case, Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179, represents an
expansion of an employee's right to sue for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy. In this case, a sales employee signed a
non-compete agreement with her previous employer which purportedly
prohibited her from working for a competitor for 18 months post-
termination. The employee ultimately was fired, and a few months
later, found employment with Creteguard, Inc., a competitor of her
former employer. After her hire, her previous employer co...
Employees Cannot Sue Under Labor Code 351 for Alleged Tip Pooling Violations
By Robin E. Weideman Today the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, holding that Labor Code
section 351 does not provide private litigants a direct right to
sue for an alleged taking of their gratuities by their employer.
The Lu case is a tip pooling case, in which the plaintiff alleged
that his casino employer unlawfully required the plaintiff to
contribute 15-20% of his tips to a tip pool that was then
distributed among various employees. The plaintiff alleged
that the tip pooling arrangement violated Labor Code section 351,
which mandates that tips are the property of the employee for whom
they are left. The trial court and the appellate court both
held that the plaintiff’s Labor Code section 351 claim was
not a viable cl...
Employees Cannot Sue Under Labor Code 351 for Alleged Tip Pooling Violations
By Robin E. Weideman Today the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, holding that Labor Code
section 351 does not provide private litigants a direct right to
sue for an alleged taking of their gratuities by their employer.
The Lu case is a tip pooling case, in which the plaintiff alleged
that his casino employer unlawfully required the plaintiff to
contribute 15-20% of his tips to a tip pool that was then
distributed among various employees. The plaintiff alleged
that the tip pooling arrangement violated Labor Code section 351,
which mandates that tips are the property of the employee for whom
they are left. The trial court and the appellate court both
held that the plaintiff’s Labor Code section 351 claim was
not a viable cl...
