Most companies doing business in California are aware of California’s long-standing public policy in favor of employee mobility over an employer’s ability to impose a provision prohibiting an employee from going to work for a competitor post-termination, which is embedded in California Business & Professions Code Section 16600.  Particularly where the employer is headquartered outside of California, in a state where non-competes are enforceable under the appropriate circumstances, some employers have attempted to implement choice-of-law clauses in employment agreements with California employees that purport to require any dispute between the parties to be governed not by California law, but rather by the law of a state more favorable to the enforcement of non-competes.  As a general rule, California courts steadfastly refuse to enforce such clauses, stating that the strong public policy and statutory prohibition against non-competes in California overrides any contractual provision designating another state’s law as controlling as to the validity of a non-compete clause.  That said, if the employment agreement also includes a forum selection clause requiring any dispute to be heard in another state, some California courts do permit the action to be transferred to another state, leaving the employee to rely on the courts of that state to apply California choice-of-law principles to find the non-compete provision invalid. Continue Reading