Here’s my very brief editorial on this case: any reduction in the ability of parties to settle cases works against the supposed public policy in favor of settlement, clogs the courts, and makes us lawyers richer and everyone else poorer. Sure, you can’t waive “indemnity” rights
The Court disapproved a line of oft-cited Ninth Circuit cases upholding the so-called “narrow restraint” rule relative to B&P 16600. This provides clarity if not leniency. You just can’t do anything to stop someone from being able to do their job after they leave, more or less.
Part II essentially says that there’s nothing wrong with waiving “any and all” rights, as that is not meant to include unwaivable rights. The Concurring opinion disagreed on that point and suggests that it was an independent wrongful act for an employer to sign employees to language that might make them think they were waving something they couldn’t waive.
What does this mean? The concurrence only had two votes, but there is a line of cases that supports that basic thinking, if not in the case of a business tort for wrongful interference. It will be picked up. It also (you’d think) wouldn’t apply to contracts reviewed by attorneys.
So, employers need to once again review the kinds of contracts they are having people sign. Plaintiffs lawyers should get their clients’ employment contracts out of the file too. Time to amend?
