Need Help?

Are you interested in speaking to an attorney or finding out how the Erlich Law Firm can assist you? 

Please complete our brief questionnaire and someone will contact you within two business days.

Or, call us at 415.296.8420.

Name:*
Email:*
Phone:*
Brief description of your problem:*

Letters are Case-Sensitive

Please type the characters you see here:*
  

San Francisco Employees Entitled to Sick Leave Pay
Blog - 2007 blogs
Written by Jason Erlich   
Beginning February 5, 2007, all employees who work within the San Francisco city limits are entitled to one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The sick leave may be used to care for the employee, a family member (which includes parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings, and spouses or domestic partners) or to take a family member to medical appointments. Single employees may designate one person and take their sick leave to care for this person.

The new sick leave policy, however, is capped based on the size of the employer. For employers with less than 10 employees, employees are capped at five sick days per year, and for employers with more than 10 employees, the employer may cap at nine days per year. Accrued sick leave may be carried over from year to year, however, it is limited to the caps noted above. Employees hired before February 5, 2007 may begin accruing the sick leave immediately, and employees hired after that date begin accruing leave 90 days after their hire date. Sick leave, unlike vacation, may not be cashed out upon employment separation.

Employers who fail to provide the sick leave may be subject to penalties including fines up to three times any unlawfully withheld sick leave, $50 for each hour withheld, attorneys’ fees and interest.

Covenants Not to Compete Are Only Enforceable to Protect Trade Secrets
Blog -  2007 blogs
Written by Jason Erlich   

A recent California court decision has narrowed the scope of enforceable “covenants not to compete.” California, unlike many other states, severely limits the ability of an employer to prevent former employees from taking a position in with a competing business. California Business & Professions Code § 16600 prohibits any contract which restrains a person from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, Mr. Edwards, a former employee, agreed not to solicit Arthur Andersen’s clients after his departure. In seeking new employment, Mr. Edwards’ new firm (HSBC) required that he obtain a waiver from Arthur Andersen as a condition of employment. Arthur Andersen demanded that Mr. Edwards sign a general release in exchange for waiving the covenant. Edwards declined to sign the general release and sued Arthur Andersen for interference with his potential new job.

The court decided in California covenants not to compete will only be enforced if necessary to protect a company’s trade secrets or if signed as part of the sale of business. The court rejected a line of cases, mostly decided by federal courts interpreting California law, which had allowed covenants not to compete so long as a “substantial portion of the market” was still available to the employee.

For employees, this means that any employee non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement that attempts to restrain the employee from soliciting customers, competing against the former employer, or otherwise seeking new employment are void and unenforceable unless necessary to protect a trade secret. Trade secrets are a very narrow subset of information and much employer information does not meet the definition of trade secrets. Further, if the employer attempts to enforce an invalid non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement, then the employer may be liable for tortious interference with the employment relationship.
Home > Blog