BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1531
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1531 (Portantino) - As Amended: April 28, 2009
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires a contract entered into between the state and
a person or entity for services, goods, or materials to include
a clause stating that a person or entity contracting with the
state is prohibited from imposing a condition of employment that
would prohibit or penalize an employee subject to the contract
or employed by the personal services contractor from seeking or
accepting employment with the state.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time minor costs (under $25,000) to the Department of
General Services to develop and implement the required statement
into the general terms and conditions for all state contracts.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Business and Professions Code section 16600 states,
"Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which
anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession,
trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." Non
compete clauses may only be applied when an individual sells
the goodwill of a business, an owner sells all of his or her
ownership interest, or a partnership or limited liability
company dissolves, as specified. Current case law also
prohibits employers from narrowly tailoring a non-compete
agreement that penalizes an employee for working for a
competitor.
Nevertheless, companies frequently insert such clauses into
employment agreements to dissuade their employees from
AB 1531
Page 2
accepting employment with competitors.
2)In support of this bill, AFSCME 2620 writes, "Today the
agencies with whom the state contracts include so-called
'non-compete' clauses in their own employment contracts which
preclude or significantly penalize any clinician who may
prefer going to work for the state directly.
"The state already faces a steep recruitment problem in terms
of hiring clinical staff directly due to the state's inability
as well as the competitive wages and benefits offered. The
last thing the state should be doing is guaranteeing that
taxpayers will pay two or three times the amount necessary for
a particular worker, especially if that worker is willing to
work for the state directly."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081