Prohibitions on debauchery may also extend to the recruitment of others. Like good customers, good employees are not always easy to find and an employer may have invested a lot of time and money in finding and training their employees. It is therefore not uncommon or unreasonable for the employer to want to protect this investment by prohibiting former workers from taking other workers with them when they leave. For example, if Mary worked for Company A and was going to start her own business, she might want to take Lisa, a skilled and competent employee mary could get by with and think she would be a good complement to her team. If Mary signed a no-pocher contract when she started working for Company A, she wouldn`t be able to take Lisa away without the ability to sue the company. It is in the best interest of Company A to ensure that Lisa`s knowledge and skills remain in the company. Good customers, customers, patients, etc. are not easy to get and the employers who have them want to keep them. Debauchery prohibition agreements are added to employment contracts to protect an employer from harm caused by a former employee driving those customers or employees to a competitor.
It is increasingly common for employees to leave their jobs to start their own business. A new business won`t survive long without customers. Customers with whom the former employee has an existing relationship are the easiest customers to attract for the new company, otherwise without history or reputation in the industry. The easiest way to prevent this poaching is a restrictive agreement that limits a former employee`s ability to contact these customers. Prohibitions on debauchery are limited in some jurisdictions, particularly California, which prohibits such agreements for all circumstances other than the protection of trade secrets, with several exceptions, a decision upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2008.  Unlike non-competition rules, courts are more likely to impose prohibitions on debauchery, as they are generally not considered trade restrictions, but restrictions that a former worker can apply to. However, like competition bans, debauchery agreements can only be implemented if a court deems them appropriate. Our lawyers for litigation with prohibition of debauchery can advise Chicago clients on whether a particular agreement is likely to be appropriate. A no-pocher agreement is a less restrictive version of a non-compete clause that prohibits former workers from competing with their former employer. Debauchery prohibition agreements are intended to prevent former employees from advertising to their former employer`s clients and, due to their narrow focus, are generally less restrictive than non-competitors. Most advertising agreements contain restrictions on direct and indirect advertising. What`s the difference? Direct advertising is exactly what it looks like.
An employee who leaves your company calls a customer and says, “I`m leaving XYZ Industries. Do you want to buy from me instead of them? Or a manager leaves a company and asks his assistant to come with her. AMN sued Aya and the recruiters individually for violating the CNDA. AMN also argued that the identity of its employees was confidential information and a trade secret misused by Aya employees to recruit AMN nurses. In the infringement action, Aya and the recruitment agents successfully argued that the no-pocher clause for CNDA employees was set aside pursuant to Section 16600 of the BPC. . . .