Me, Her, the Boy and a Dog

While rifling through my Google Reader I came across a CNET article about the California Supreme Court ruling that noncompete clauses are invalid. The California law has been around since 1872, and forbids “noncompete clauses” that restrict management employees’ options in their next job or business. According to the CNET.com article, the law has been interpreted differently throughout the state. In fact, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled in favor of allowing a company to restrict their employees’ future job choices, as long as it does not prevent them from working in the same field.

Today’s ruling was in response to Edwards vs. Arthur Andersen, a case that clearly states that Edwards, a tax manager, signed an invalid noncompete clause. The court said in its final disposition (see PDF) that “Non-competition agreements are invalid…in California even if narrowly drawn.”

This ruling jumps out at me because as a former television reporter/anchor, I was forced to sign contracts with noncompete clauses. Those clauses stated that as an on-air personality I could not appear on camera for a competitor in the same market within 12 months of the end of my contract with the current station. It didn’t prevent another station from hiring me, they just couldn’t put me on-air, which, of course, defeated the purpose.

I’m not familiar with contract law in the Commonwealth, but I do know that Virginia is right to work state. So, my question is, how can TV stations restrict an employee’s right to work at another TV station? Seems to be a conflict there. Any lawyers want to tackle that question? Wait, never mind, you’d probably bill me at $450 an hour.