Home>Articles>AB 1076: Noncompete Clauses

Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

AB 1076: Noncompete Clauses

It would be unlawful to include a noncompete clause in an employment contract

By Chris Micheli, February 27, 2023 8:05 am

Assembly Bill 1076 by Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) was introduced to prohibit noncompete agreements in California. AB 1076 would amend Business and Professions Code Section 16600 and codify existing case law, Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, related to noncompete agreements in employment contracts.

The bill would add the following three subdivisions to Business and Professions Code Section 16600:

  • This section is to be read broadly to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter.
  • This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
  • It would be unlawful to include a noncompete clause in an employment contract, or to require an employee to enter a noncompete agreement, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:


3 thoughts on “AB 1076: Noncompete Clauses

  1. Democrat Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan is a radical leftist lawyer who specialized in environmental and immigration law having taught at Santa Clara University and Golden Gate University. Why is she pushing legislation that would prohibit noncompete agreements in California? What lobby group is behind this legislation? Why is there so much legislation by the Democrat cabal to weaken and destroy private employer and employee contractual relationships?

    1. Non-competes have been dead in California for decades already. Courts refuse to enforce them except in rare circumstances. Even so, the clauses still appear in many contracts, fooling the naive and innocent into believing them. The benefit of this law will be that the clauses will appear less often.

  2. Yet another law that would immediately be challenged in the courts and struck down for being unconstitutional. Of course the Dems go on and on about how the government should not be involved in the “private” discussions between a woman (I mean, “birthing person”) and her (their) doctor. But they will say that the government absolutely should interfere with the private discussions of an employee with their boss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *