hellogoodbye
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- California
Non-solicitation of employees of a caregiving company
I am looking for a personal assistant/ housekeeper. I had signed a contract with a home-care agency, which had the following non-solicitation clause:
Non-solicitation of employees:
Client understands and agrees that Agency has incurred considerable expense in advertising, interviewing, recruiting, screening, evaluating, hiring, training, staffing and supervising employees. As a client under contract with the agency, the client agrees not to solicit agency employees directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to provide services of any kind for the time period of at least 18 months after the date of termination of services, notwithstanding the cause or reason for termination. Should this agreement be broken, client/representative agrees to pay Agency $5,000.
They sent a person out. That young person had to resign from the company, due to being an illegal immigrant and not being able to fill out their employment papers. I got along well with this person and would want to hire them soon (before 18 months have passed, if I were to stop services with the agency). Is the non-solicitation clause still enforceable when the employee is no longer an employee of the agency? From the wording of the contract it seems to pretty clearly apply only to current, not former employees, but I wanted to double check.
If it does apply to former employees, I understand that if the agency finds out, they could try to sue me (presumably in small claims, since they would recover at 5k at most, if I'm understanding the contract correctly). Does anyone know by what means agencies try to find this information out?
Furthermore, from my research, these clauses are generally not enforceable in California if they are so broad as to prevent the employee from seeking work. The scope of this one is fairly narrow since the "fee" is due only if the employee is hired before 18 months have passed. Does anyone know whether, if I were sued, I might have a good chance of arguing that the contract is not enforceable?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I am looking for a personal assistant/ housekeeper. I had signed a contract with a home-care agency, which had the following non-solicitation clause:
Non-solicitation of employees:
Client understands and agrees that Agency has incurred considerable expense in advertising, interviewing, recruiting, screening, evaluating, hiring, training, staffing and supervising employees. As a client under contract with the agency, the client agrees not to solicit agency employees directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to provide services of any kind for the time period of at least 18 months after the date of termination of services, notwithstanding the cause or reason for termination. Should this agreement be broken, client/representative agrees to pay Agency $5,000.
They sent a person out. That young person had to resign from the company, due to being an illegal immigrant and not being able to fill out their employment papers. I got along well with this person and would want to hire them soon (before 18 months have passed, if I were to stop services with the agency). Is the non-solicitation clause still enforceable when the employee is no longer an employee of the agency? From the wording of the contract it seems to pretty clearly apply only to current, not former employees, but I wanted to double check.
If it does apply to former employees, I understand that if the agency finds out, they could try to sue me (presumably in small claims, since they would recover at 5k at most, if I'm understanding the contract correctly). Does anyone know by what means agencies try to find this information out?
Furthermore, from my research, these clauses are generally not enforceable in California if they are so broad as to prevent the employee from seeking work. The scope of this one is fairly narrow since the "fee" is due only if the employee is hired before 18 months have passed. Does anyone know whether, if I were sued, I might have a good chance of arguing that the contract is not enforceable?
Thanks in advance for your help.
