Legal Question in Business Law in California

I am hiring employees from a company that does services for a building I am taking over. They say I cant hire their employees because the owner of the building signed a contract saying they cannot hire their employees directly or indirectly and I am the son in law of the owner who signed. My company is 100% mine and has no connection to my father in law (the owner) Would this be considered an indirect hiring and since I didnt sign any contract wouldnt I be untouchable. I think they are just trying to scare off a new competitor, Thanks!


Asked on 12/31/09, 10:08 am

2 Answers from Attorneys
Scott Linden Scott H. Linden, Esq.

It really depends on what the employees did or did not sign, not the owner. Further, if they did sign a non-compete agreement, did they do so knowingly.

I must admit, the question is a little strange, especially since the employees are already working in the building and you just want to retain them as employees.

Have you discussed this with your father in law? What is his stand on the situation? Were you provided with a copy of this "contract" signed by him?

Please feel free to contact me directly through my site RulesOfEmployment.com.

Scott

Read more
Answered on 1/05/10, 10:34 am

Mr. Linden is right that your question is strange. Maybe you should re-post it more clearly describing the situation. He is quite wrong, however, that it only matters what the employees signed. A contract between employers not to hire away employees is entirely enforceable as between the employers and a breach is actionable, unless it would seriously impair the employee's rights to find work in their profession (such as if the employers were the only two employers in that business in the area).

Read more
Answered on 1/05/10, 9:35 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Business Law questions and answers in California