It is common practice that most employers settling with former employees include a clause in said settlement or separation agreements saying that the employee would never reapply to the company and was also not eligible for rehire. However, there is not clear authority saying those actual clauses are legally permissible. A divided Ninth Circuit panel has recently held that such clauses may constitute an unlawful restraint of trade under California law. As such, employers should give serious consideration and thought to including a pro forma “no re-hire” provision in separation or settlement agreements as a standard practice. In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, et al., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642 (April 8, 2015), a physician challenged enforcement of a settlement agreement containing a “no re-hire” provision. He argued that his former employer was a key participant in his field with plans to grow by acquiring other practices. As written, the no-hire provision would not only preclude him from applying to practices affiliated with his former employer, but also waived his right to employment with any facility his former employer may contract with in the future. The district court enforced the “no re-hire” provision, and the physician appealed arguing the “no re-hire” clause was a material term of the settlement, and that finding it void would make the entire agreement unenforceable. The Ninth Circuit panel considered the arguments under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, which provides that every contract which restrains a person from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void. Section 16600 is usually interpreted to apply to contracts that prohibit competition with a former employer, while this case is the converse. The “no re-hire” clause allows employment at competitors and non-affiliated facilities, but prohibits future employment with the employer or any of its affiliates. The panel determined that the district court erred in applying an exclusion of “no re-hire” provisions to Section 16600, finding that Section 16600 should be interpreted broadly and should not be restricted to only non-compete agreements. Two judges on the panel concluded that the settlement agreement was a contract restraining plaintiff from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business. They decided to send the case back to the district court to decide if the restraint was “substantial.” Until the courts resolve this issue, employers should tread carefully when considering whether a “no re-hire” clause should be included in settlement agreement. As some departing employees may never actually strive to be rehired, employers seeking to use a “no re-hire” clause in a settlement agreement should carefully consider whether there is any practical need or advantage to forbid rehiring the employee and the potential restraint on trade.
Not so Fast: 'No-Rehire' Clauses Could be a Restraint on Trade
RELATED ARTICLES
In a Blow to the Transportation Industry, Ninth Circuit Overturns AB 5 Injunction
April 30, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
California Adopts New Exemptions from AB 5 Independent Contractor Classification
September 9, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law
Motorin’: CAFA Removal Upheld, California Wage and Hour Class Action Dismissed
August 26, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Employment Lessons
Outbreak of COVID-19 Public Nuisance Cases Continues
August 7, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Public Nuisance Claims Emerge In COVID-19 Workplace Litigation Filings
June 19, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
In a Blow to the Transportation Industry, Ninth Circuit Overturns AB 5 Injunction
April 30, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
California Adopts New Exemptions from AB 5 Independent Contractor Classification
September 9, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law
Motorin’: CAFA Removal Upheld, California Wage and Hour Class Action Dismissed
August 26, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Employment Lessons
Outbreak of COVID-19 Public Nuisance Cases Continues
August 7, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Public Nuisance Claims Emerge In COVID-19 Workplace Litigation Filings
June 19, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
COVID-19 Related Workplace Litigation Picks Up Steam
June 12, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Brain Freeze: California Federal Court Rejects Ice Cream Shop’s CAFA Removal
May 29, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law
California Creates Workers’ Compensation Presumption of Coverage for COVID-19 Illnesses
May 8, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
California Appellate Court Finds Open-Ended Pay-When-Paid Clause Unenforceable
May 1, 2020 | Construction Law, Contracts
California Cracks Down on Independent Contractor Status in Gig Economy
September 19, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
California Supreme Court Rejects Workplace Arbitration Agreement
September 13, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
California Court Rejects Motion To Arbitrate PAGA Claim Under State Labor Code
August 16, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
Federal De Minimis Rule Does Not Apply To California State Wage and Hour Claims
July 11, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
Common Sense Prevails in California Wage Victory, Falters in PAGA Action
August 15, 2018 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Round Up: Court Rules Rounding Payroll System Permissible Even When (a slight) Majority of Employees Lose Time
June 29, 2018 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
California Supreme Court Ruling to Give More Workers Employee Status
May 2, 2018 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
ICE Raids on 7-Eleven Franchise Stores Result in 21 Arrests
January 12, 2018 | Employment Lessons, High Stakes Employment Issues, Currents - Employment Law
On Second Thought … State Supreme Court Questions Key Noncompete Drafting Strategy
December 18, 2017 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the Workplace? The EEOC Becomes Trainer-in-Chief
October 6, 2017 | EEOC, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
California Bill Placing Restrictions on Employer Immigration Worksite Raids Awaits Governor’s Signature
September 29, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
California Dreaming: Court Upholds Restrictions in Employment Agreement, Bars Use of Confidential Information
September 12, 2017 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Trump-Era Immigration Worksite Raid Threats May Bring New Requirements for California Employers
June 2, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
California Supreme Court Throws Down the Gauntlet on Arbitration Waivers
April 24, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Ok...Are You Sitting Down?
April 5, 2016 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
Are You Relying on Electronic Signatures for Employment Documents?
January 30, 2015 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Not So Fast: Parties Cannot Impose Confidentiality Restrictions on Judicially Approved FLSA Settlements
January 29, 2015 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
On Break, But Still on Call: “On Call” Rest Breaks are Permissible Under California Law
January 9, 2015 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
California Class Action an Occasion for All Employers to Review Vacation Practices
January 5, 2015 | Letter of the Law, Currents - Employment Law
California Governor Signs Bills Impacting California Wage Suits
August 22, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
Ninth Circuit FAAAA Meal and Rest Period Preemption Decision Appealed
August 8, 2014 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
9th Circuit Rules that the FAAAA Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Period Laws
July 14, 2014 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
New California Employment Laws Take Effect on July 1, 2014—Increased Minimum Wage, Expanded Paid Family Leave and Further Limits on Background Checks
July 1, 2014 | Employee Health Issues, Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
Against the Anchorman: California Court of Appeal Deems Hiring Young, Female Weather Anchors a Protected Exercise of Free Speech
January 9, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
California Court of Appeals Overturns Superior Court Denial of Class Certification
December 6, 2013 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
Governor Would Like Massachusetts to Join California As a Non-Noncompete State
September 16, 2013 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
California Appeals Court Approves Rounding of Employee Time
November 1, 2012 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
California Passes Law to Regulate Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts
October 4, 2012 | Social Media and Technology, Currents - Employment Law
California Governor Signs Law Prohibiting Explicit Mutual Wage Agreements
October 3, 2012 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
California Creates First State-Run Retirement Plan for Private Sector Employees
October 2, 2012 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
California Supreme Court to Review Class Action Arbitration Waivers in Employment Agreements
September 25, 2012 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
Class Arbitration Prohibited if Not Authorized in Agreement
September 7, 2012 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
Another California Court of Appeal Struggles to Come To Grips with Arbitration
August 16, 2012 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center