Any decision to maintain such provisions in California agreements should be made in close consultation with a lawyer. Employers who maintain such provisions should ensure that these agreements have strong life-saving provisions. Most importantly, these employers should go to counsel if (1) a potential employee refuses to sign an agreement because such a provision is not applicable and (2) the employer is considering imposing such a ban on debauchery against an outgoing worker. In AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare Services, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) assessed whether a clause prohibiting debauchery for employees under Section 16600 was not valid. Competing firms in this case recruited firms that placed temporary “homeless nurses” in vacant positions. AMN Healthcare attempted to impose no-binge agreements against certain intermediaries who quit their jobs to work for their competitor Aya Healthcare and then employed nurses who had previously placed the human resources intermediaries through AMN. A no-recruitment agreement for employees, also known as non-interference or non-competition, can be found in all types of employment contracts, including letters of offer of work and termination contracts. These commitments may constitute a separate contractual agreement or be made available as a single clause in a wider employment contract. When an employee signs a no-pocher agreement, that employee promises not to ask, attract or encourage employees to leave their current employer to work either for or with the worker who signed the agreement. In Los Angeles, the main purpose of employee debauchery agreements is to prevent employees from being assaulted by former employees who have found new employment with their former employer`s competitors or who have decided to start their own business that would perform work similar to that of a former employer. To date, California courts have yet to officially declared debauchery agreements for disabled and illegal employees under California law.

Employers have traditionally distinguished the provisions relating to the worker recruitment prohibition regime by relying on a 1985 California court of appeals called Loral v. Moyes. 174 Cal. App.3d 268 (1985). There, the Tribunal held that a provision prohibiting debauchery was not contrary to Article 16600 and could be applied. . . .