Former Employees May Use Client Lists to Solicit Customers Unless the List Is a Trade Secret

In the latest installment of California’s fair competition law, an appellate court provided additional guidance about the scope and extent that employees can solicit clients of their former employer.

In the case of The Retirement Group v. Galante, a group of former employees for the Retirement Group (TRG) joined a competing firm and began contacting their former clients some of whom transferred their brokerage accounts. TRG sued the former employees and received an injunction prohibiting the former employees from “directly or indirectly soliciting any current customers to transfer any securities account or relationship . . .” However, a second clause in the injunction stated that the former employees could not use any information which was found “solely and exclusively” on TRG databases. The former employees appealed the injunction as unfairly limiting their right to compete with TRG because in essence they could not contact any brokerage clients without running afoul of the injunction.

Previous cases have established that customer lists could qualify as a trade secret if the employer took appropriate action to meet the trade secret qualification (i.e. the list has independent economic value providing a substantial business advantage, is not generally known to the public, and reasonable steps are taken to protect its confidentiality). However, if the information on the customer list was available from public sources (e.g. business directories) or if the employer had not taken sufficient steps to protect the list (e.g. lists were in employees personal possession), then the customer list was not likely to be considered a trade secret.

Further, a line of cases had found that an employer could prohibit former employees from soliciting clients either through a contractual relationship (e.g. pre-employment non-compete agreements or a severance agreements). Well settled law had held that former employees could announce the opening of a new business or the joining of a new employer, and that it was within fair competition if the clients jumped ship.

Now, under a series of decisions (most notably Arthur Anderson v. Edwards and the current decision) courts seem to be leaning towards a view that former employees can freely contact and even “solicit” clients of their previous employer as long as the source of information is not a trade secret. As the decision noted, “[I]t is not the solicitation of the former employer’s customers, but is instead the misuse of trade secret information, that may be enjoined.”

Thus, a word of caution for employers and employees – merely asserting that a customer list is “confidential” or “proprietary” is no longer good enough to prohibit former employees from contacting clients if the employees go on to a competitor. For employers, a careful review of any confidentiality or non-compete agreements is required to ensure that any clauses do not violate the new unfair competition landscape. And for employees, so long as the customer list is not a trade secret, it appears that openly contacting clients is permitted.

Read more

Farm worker sorting persimmons

Fresno Farm Contractor and Growers Cited $1.9 Million for Wage Theft Affecting Hundreds of Workers

Wage theft is commonly reported in the restaurant industry, but it also occurs in many other types of jobs across California. The agricultural sector in Fresno County was recently hit with allegations…

READ ARTICLE
Young fast food workers subject to harassment at work

Bay Area Popeyes Case Puts Focus on Workplace Sexual Harassment

Two Bay Area women filed claims against Popeyes, alleging sexual harassment during their employment at a franchise location in Oakland. The complaints, filed on Aug. 11, accused the company of failing to…

READ ARTICLE
Man with cane requesting reasonable accommodation

Worker Wins $20 Million From San Francisco Marriott Marquis in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

A San Francisco jury awarded a former Marriott Marquis employee $20 million in damages after finding that the hotel failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability. The verdict was announced in…

READ ARTICLE
Fighting wage theft on your own can be stressful and difficult, which is why it is a good idea to consult an experienced employment lawyer

Bay Area Subway Franchisee Faces Closure and $1 Million Penalty for Wage Theft

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered a 14-unit Subway franchisee in the San Francisco Bay Area to either close or sell their stores. The employers must pay…

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
Fox40-bw
KPIX-bw
SFGate-bw
marin-ij
Abc10-bw