California Rejects a Restrictive Employment Contract

Robert Half, a well-known staffing company, had an unusually aggressive contract clause to restrict its departed employees. Specifically, paragraph 13 of Robert Half’s employment contract said:

"After termination of Employee’s employment with Employer, Employee shall not indicate on any stationary, business card, advertising, solicitation or other business materials that Employee is or was formerly an employee of Employer..."

The clause would prevent former temporary employees from listing the company on LinkedIn or similar websites.  The purpose of the paragraph was to hinder former Robert Half employees from truthfully marketing their expertise. Indeed, Robert Half freely admitted it wanted to prevent former employees from “using RHI’s own name and brand to compete with RHI.”

Fortunately, a recent federal court decision rejected the overreaching contract clause.  Robert Half sued its former employee for violating Paragraph 13, but the court dismissed the claims, finding that Paragraph violated California's laws on non-compete agreements.

Other states - including Texas - tend to be more tolerant of non-compete restrictions than California.  We simply can't assume that a similar restriction would be unenforceable in Texas.

If you have concerns or questions about a non-compete agreement, please contact us or schedule an appointment today.

Courts Weigh-In on Gender Differences in Salary Negotiation

Research shows that women are more reticent than men to negotiate their salary offers.  One study of graduating MBA students found that half of the men had negotiated their job offers as compared to only one eighth of the women. This pattern has also been observed in survey studies of working adults.  

Researchers have examined why, and the answer has more to do with how women are treated when they negotiate than with their general confidence or skills at negotiation.  Several studies suggest that the social cost of negotiating for higher pay is greater for women than it is for men.

In November 2014, the Fifth Circuit released an opinion (Thibodeaux-Woody v. Houston Community College), addressing this very issue.  The case asked whether an employer violates the law when it treats female and male job candidates differently in the salary negotiation process.     

Margaret D. Thibodeaux-Woody began working as a part-time, adjunct faculty member for Houston Community College ("HCC") in 1998.  In 2008, she applied for one of HCC’s two open program manager positions.  During her interview, she asked the interviewer if she could negotiate a starting salary higher than what was offered. The interviewer replied that this was not possible.  HCC eventually hired her at the originally offered salary.  Mr. Corder, a male candidate for the same position, also asked his interviewer if he could negotiate a higher salary. That interviewer forwarded the request up the chain of command to the human resources department. HCC eventually hired Mr. Corder at a salary higher than the original offer (and higher than Ms. Woody’s salary).   Ms. Woody also presented evidence that HCC had an informal policy that permitted negotiation, and that her interviewer would have known of the policy at the time of her interview.  In fact, her interviewer was included on e-mails regarding Mr. Corder’s salary negotiation, but kept quiet about Ms. Woody’s request to negotiate.

Woody sued for sex discrimination, but the trial court dismissed her case. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed and sent the case back to the trial court.  It held that there was a "genuine issue of fact" as to whether HCC made wage negotiations equally available to male and female candidates. 

If you have concerns or questions about equal pay, please contact us or schedule an appointment today.