<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Storm&#039;s Employment Law &#187; Employee Mobility</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/tag/employee-mobility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Since 2004.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 15:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Courts to Employers: Stop Trying To Loophole 16600</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/courts-to-employers-stop-trying-to-loophole-16600/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/courts-to-employers-stop-trying-to-loophole-16600/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blog News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I apologize for the almost total lack of posting. I was in a trial that involved testimony over 4 weeks starting October 6, and just finished up the concluding briefs today. If you can believe it, in the middle of &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/courts-to-employers-stop-trying-to-loophole-16600/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/courts-to-employers-stop-trying-to-loophole-16600/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TRG v. Galante</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Go read Greg on TRG v. Galante. My only comment is that the courts could eliminate a lot of so-called &#8220;trade secrets&#8221; litigation and other back-door attempts to create and enforce covenants not to compete in California by continuing with &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/trg-v-galante/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Neville v. Chudacoff</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Second District Case No. B198253 Gregory Chudacoff was an attorney who represented Maxsecurity, Inc.  When Mark Neville left his employment with Maxsecurity, Chudacoff wrote a letter to Maxsecurity&#8217;s customers accussing Neville of various torts and advised them not to do &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/neville-v-chudacoff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Humanscale Is Not A Panacea.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/humanscale-is-not-a-panacea/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/humanscale-is-not-a-panacea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big firm blast-broadcasts have hailed the recent Jones v. Humanscale Corp. decision as a &#8220;major victory in the area of non-competition, choice of law, and arbitration.&#8221; It is none of the above. At most, it might provide for an interesting &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/humanscale-is-not-a-panacea/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/humanscale-is-not-a-panacea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Megan&#039;s Law and Negligent Hiring</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/megans-law-and-negligent-hiring/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/megans-law-and-negligent-hiring/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fisher &#38; Phillips has this piece on the effect of Megan&#8217;s law on negligent hiring. Interesting read.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/megans-law-and-negligent-hiring/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FREE ADVICE WEDNESDAY: Easing the blow of a firing.</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/free-advice-wednesday-easing-the-blow-of-a-firing/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/free-advice-wednesday-easing-the-blow-of-a-firing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[QUESTION I run a small business and I can&#8217;t afford to offer much of a severance package to an employee that I need to get rid of, but I&#8217;m not sure what else I can do to get a release. &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/free-advice-wednesday-easing-the-blow-of-a-firing/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/free-advice-wednesday-easing-the-blow-of-a-firing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do You Have A Camera Phone Policy ? (No, Really)</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/do-you-have-a-camera-phone-policy-no-really/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/do-you-have-a-camera-phone-policy-no-really/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 15:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEO Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nexsen Pruet has this advisory on camera phones in the workplace. Apparently, larger employment law firms are successful at drumming up business by scaring the crap out of employers. Here&#8217;s their lead-in. Your company’s confidential documents are being copied. Your &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/do-you-have-a-camera-phone-policy-no-really/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/do-you-have-a-camera-phone-policy-no-really/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. Second Appellate Dist. No. B165380</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/motevalli-v-los-angeles-unified-school-dist-second-appellate-dist-no-b165380/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/motevalli-v-los-angeles-unified-school-dist-second-appellate-dist-no-b165380/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Just in case it wasn't clear. . .—Ed.] &#8220;. . . no cause of action exists for tortioius nonrenewal of an employment contract in violation of public policy.&#8221; Judgment below AFFIRMED.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/motevalli-v-los-angeles-unified-school-dist-second-appellate-dist-no-b165380/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reeves v. Hanlon Cal. S. Ct. No. S114811</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reeves-v-hanlon-cal-s-ct-no-s114811/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reeves-v-hanlon-cal-s-ct-no-s114811/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Court holds that interference with an at-will employment contract is properly analyzed as a tort of interference with a prospective economic advantage (i.e. does not require the existence of a contract) because the interference has to do &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reeves-v-hanlon-cal-s-ct-no-s114811/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/reeves-v-hanlon-cal-s-ct-no-s114811/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agosta v. Astor, 4th. Dist. No. D04220</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/agosta-v-astor-4th-dist-no-d04220/</link>
		<comments>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/agosta-v-astor-4th-dist-no-d04220/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon-Erik Storm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Mobility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This ruling continues contouring the doctrine of at-will employment and its relation to contract-relationship torts. Unlike the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which does not lie when an at-will employee is terminated, the employer cannot avoid tort liability &#8230; <a href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/agosta-v-astor-4th-dist-no-d04220/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/agosta-v-astor-4th-dist-no-d04220/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

