Employment in Financial Services

Anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution must, at all times, have the necessary professional standing and expertise to perform their duties.

This will be assessed by the NBB through standard forms to complete if there is a new appointment, new elements during employment, termination of appointment or renewal of appointment.

"N-1" effective managers must meet the same criteria, but authorisation by the NBB is not necessary (see question 2).

Yes, special certification is required for financial services employers to undertake their duties.

The CPA-10 (ANBIMA Series 10 Professional Certification) is designed for professionals who distribute investment products for retail in bank branches or service platforms.

The CPA-20 (ANBIMA Series 20 Professional Certification) is for professionals who distribute investment products to clients in the high-income retail, private, corporate, and institutional investor segments in bank branches or on service platforms.

The CEA (ANBIMA Certification of Investment Specialists) is a certification that qualifies financial market professionals to act as investment specialists. These specialists can recommend investment products to clients in different segments and advise account managers.

The CFG (ANBIMA Certification of Fundamentals in Management) is for certified professionals who know the sector's technical basis, which is an advantage for occupying various positions in asset-management companies.

The CGA (ANBIMA Manager Certification) qualifies professionals to work with the management of third-party resources in fixed-income investment funds, shares, foreign exchange, multimarket, managed portfolios, and index funds.

The CGE (ANBIMA Manager Certification for Structured Funds) qualifies professionals to work with third-party resource management in the structured products industry.

Since 1 July 2010, the FMA General Regulation requires investment services providers to pass an examination to ensure that certain employees have a minimum knowledge base in the field.

This applies to salespersons, managers, financial instrument clearing managers, post-trade managers, financial analysts, financial instruments traders, compliance and internal control officers, and investment services compliance officers.

Since 1 January 2020, the following must also obtain certification: natural persons acting as a financial investment advisor; natural persons with the power to manage the legal person authorised as a financial investment advisor; and persons employed to provide investment advice by the legal person authorised as a financial investment advisor.

FMA certification must be obtained within a maximum of six months of the beginning of that person’s employment with an investment services provider. Certification is issued by FMA-certified organisations.

People already in practice before 1 July 2010 are exempt from this certification. This is known as a grandfather clause.

In addition to this minimum knowledge requirement, certain professionals are subject to an assessment of their knowledge and skills. This applies to natural persons who provide not only information but also financial advice, and generally takes the form of an annual evaluation interview.

Taking on certain tasks requires prior proof of competence, which varies depending on the financial services sector and the role. As an example, investment services must notify BaFin of investment advisors, sales representatives, and compliance officers, who in each case must be knowledgeable and reliable, and whose expertise must be reviewed at least annually (section 87, WpHG and the corresponding Employee Notification Ordinance). Institutions must deliver proof of professional suitability (ie, sufficient theoretical and practical knowledge of the relevant business and management experience) and reliability for certain key employees, managing directors, and members of the supervisory or administrative board (sections 25c paragraph 1 and 25d paragraph 1 KWG, sections 20 and 21 WpIG).

SFC

The “Guidelines on Competence” published by the SFC lists the necessary qualifications for employees carrying on regulated activities. For academic qualifications, employees should attain at least Level 2 in either English or Chinese as well as in Mathematics in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education or equivalent. In addition, employees are expected to obtain recognised industry qualifications and pass the local regulatory framework paper. For responsible officers (ROs), the SFC requires higher levels of educational qualifications and experience.

IA

The “Guideline on ‘Fit and Proper’ Criteria for Licensed Insurance Intermediaries Under the Insurance Ordinance” published by the IA sets out the education requirements for licenced employees under the IO. Higher levels of educational qualifications are required for responsible officers.

The recruitment of financial services employees for public-sector enterprises may be done through competitive scores secured through multi-level tests held for generalist and specialist posts. For instance, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection conducts tests for selection for public sector banks; and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), LIC, etc, hold similar tests for their recruitment.

In terms of industry practice, eligibility to appear at the preliminary levels or the final interview stages of the above tests may sometimes require certain specific certifications (eg, computer certifications for clerical posts in the banking sector. These certifications are prescribed by industry regulators and are actioned by industry collectives. For instance, the RBI[1] has made it mandatory for all banking and non-banking financial institutions to obtain certification for their employees. Industry collective the Indian Banking Association provides such certifications in specific areas like treasury operations, risk management, accounting and credit management. Along with this, further certifications may also be required for Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Know Your Customer (KYC), compliance with foreign exchange regulations, awareness of legal aspects of cyber security, etc.[2]

Similarly, the National Institute of Securities Markets (NISM), an institute promoted by SEBI, accredits institutions that coach and certify wealth management advisors. NISM-accredited qualifications are compulsory for wealth managers in the capital market segment. Also, the Indian Institute of Banking and Finance (IIBF) gives certification for Debt Recovery Agents based on RBI guidelines. Various collectives like the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India, Foreign Exchange Dealers Association of India and the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, inter alia, collaborate with the IIBF in the certification process in the treasury, forex and compliance sectors. The IIBF’s certification for customer service, KYC/AML programmes of the IIBF, and other similar certified courses from the NISM/AMFI/IRDA etc, are essential before hiring employees for certain specialised roles.

As part of the registration process, the SEBI regulations relating to portfolio managers and investment advisors require certain specific employees to be employed with minimum qualifications.

Yes, under the Minimum Competency Regime (see question 1), employees who perform certain prescribed functions and roles in prescribed RFSPs such as insurance businesses and credit unions, must meet the required competencies and qualifications standards.

The 2023 Act also introduces a new requirement that persons can only be permitted to perform a CF role (including a PCF role) where a certificate of compliance with the F&P Standards given by the firm is in force (Certification Regime).

As part of the Certification Regime, a certificate of compliance may only be given if:

1. the firm is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person complies with the F&P Standards; and
2. the person has agreed to abide by the F&P Standards and to notify the firm without delay if for any reason they no longer comply with the F&P Standards.

Yes, please see question 2.

Any individual performing a prescribed key role must be pre-approved by the IoM FSA and be certified as “fit and proper”. The IoM FSA has issued detailed guidance for financial institutions that set out the criteria that they normally apply in considering the fitness and propriety of individuals who wish to undertake Controlled Functions. Appendix 2 of the guidance contains a table setting out which Controlled Functions require consent and which functions are notification only.

Guidance can be found here: https://www.iomfsa.im/media/2464/regulatoryguidancefitnessandpropriety.pdf

Employees in general positions are not required to obtain specific certification to perform their duties within financial entities. However, in brokerage houses, individuals involved in operations with the public, counselling, promotion and, if applicable, acquisition and sale of securities, must be authorised by the CNBV and obtain a certification issued by a regulated body recognized by the CNBV.  

The CNBV and CNSF, as applicable, may caution, remove, adjourn, or disqualify board members and the general manager if they believe the individual does not comply with legal requirements to occupy such positions or if their conduct constitutes a breach of applicable laws and regulations.

According to Dutch law, financial services sector companies must guarantee the quality of their services. This means, among other things, that they must have skilled employees for the subjects on which they advise. After all, the consumer must be able to trust that an employee has the right knowledge and skills to provide appropriate advice.

Therefore, all financial services sector employees with substantive customer contact must have up-to-date professional competence at all times. This means that employees must be skilled, aware of current developments in their field, and can apply these in their work. The obligation to maintain up-to-date professional competence at all times is an open standard. Financial services companies may, therefore, decide for themselves how to implement this standard.

There is, however, a mandatory Wft diploma requirement for employees who provide financial advice. Which products and services an employee may provide advice on depends on the specific Wft diplomas he or she has obtained (after passing an exam). A Wft diploma is valid for a definite period (with a maximum of three years). To renew a Wft diploma, an employee must pass a new exam.

Furthermore, all candidates who will (co-)determine the policy of a financial services company must also be assessed by local authorities and will be tested for reliability and suitability.

Representatives, senior management employees and other office holders may require MAS’ approval prior to an appointment or assuming an office (see question 2).

In particular, MAS must be notified of the appointment of representatives providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001 or carrying out regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (dealing in capital markets products, advising on corporate finance, fund and REIT management, product financing, providing credit ratings or custodial services). With some exceptions, they must be at least 21 years old, satisfy minimum academic qualification requirements, and complete prescribed modules of the Capital Markets and Financial Advisory Services examinations.

Depending on the status of the employing entity and the position of the financial services employee, a special certification or, more generally, proof of relevant work experience and sufficient education is required.

As a general rule, persons holding executive, overall management, oversight or control functions (eg, a member of the board, CEO, compliance officer, risk officer or their deputies) in regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are required to demonstrate to FINMA that they have sufficient relevant work experience and education. As proof, FINMA requests current CVs, diplomas, certifications and contact details of references. The scope and nature of the future business activity and the size and complexity of the company in question also need to be considered.

Furthermore, client advisers of so-called financial service providers (eg, investment advisers) must have sufficient expertise on the code of conduct and the necessary expertise required to perform their work. Client advisors often prove that these requirements have been met by successfully attending special courses. In addition, insurance intermediaries registered with FINMA’s insurance intermediary register have to prove that they have undergone sufficient education and have sufficient qualifications. For this purpose, FINMA has published a list of different Swiss and foreign educational qualifications deemed to be sufficient on its website.

As noted in question 2 -, employees undertaking certain regulated roles must obtain the pre-approval of the relevant regulatory authority.  The regulators in each case will assess the fitness and propriety of the relevant individual.
 

See question 2.

All individuals performing an SMF, as classified by the FCA or PRA, will be subject to the SMR. SMFs are described in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) as functions that require the person performing them to be responsible for managing one or more aspects of a firm’s affairs authorised by the FSMA, and those aspects involve, or might involve, a risk of serious consequences for the firm or business or other interests in the UK. As noted, any individual performing an SMF will need to be pre-approved by the relevant regulator before they can start their role, and thereafter they must be certified as fit and proper by their firm annually. Applications to the regulator for pre-approval must disclose all matters relating to a candidate’s fitness and propriety and be accompanied by a statement of responsibilities. Firms must carry out a criminal records check as part of the application for approval.

Additionally, employees of firms who are not senior managers but who, because of their role, could still pose a risk of significant harm to the firm or any of its customers, may be subject to the CR. The certification functions that place an employee within the ambit of the CR are different under the rules of the FCA and the PRA but include persons such as those dealing with clients or those subject to qualification requirements. These employees must be certified by their firm as fit and proper for their roles both at the outset of their employment and on an annual basis thereafter (certified staff). Firms are not required to carry out criminal records checks for certified staff, but firms can choose to do so to the extent it is lawful.

The regulators have set out detailed guidance for firms to consider when assessing an individual’s fitness and propriety. This includes assessing an individual’s honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.

For an individual’s FINRA registration to become effective, they must pass the Securities Industries Essentials examination. FINRA rules also require registered persons to participate in continuing education courses. Failure to do so may result in a covered person’s registration being deemed inactive until the requirement has been satisfied.

California Financing Law requires the licensing and regulation of finance lenders and brokers making and brokering consumer and commercial loans, unless exempt.

There are no specific rules for the financial services sector, except that they cannot have an effect that does not respect the caps for remuneration (see question 7).

Yes, restrictive covenants are possible for financial service employees. However, restrictions on work in other companies in the sector (non-competition) must be paid for less than 24 months. These criteria are not provided for by law, but were constructed by Brazilian courts when adjudicating on this issue.

Three specific clauses are potentially relevant to employees in the financial services sector.

Firstly, regarding the confidentiality clause, employees in the financial services sector are bound to respect professional and banking secrecy.

More specifically, article 25 of Section III of Chapter 4 of Title II of Book 1 of the national collective agreement for financial companies of 22 November 1968, provides that all staff members are bound by professional secrecy within the company and towards third parties. Employees may not knowingly pass on to another company information specific to their employer or previous employer.

Article 24 of Chapter 3 of Title III of the national collective bargaining agreement for bank employees of 10 January 2000 codifies the absolute respect of professional secrecy.

Article 44 of Chapter 2 of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for the financial markets of 11 June 2010 states that the employee must comply specifically with the rules of conduct regarding professional secrecy, both within the company and concerning third parties.

Confidentiality clauses can also be concluded between the employee and his or her employer, to reinforce the obligation of confidentiality.

In principle, a confidentiality clause allows for the protection of certain information exchanged during the contract and can be enforced after the termination of the employment contract if it is not perpetual. In this case, it is quite conceivable to contractualise such an obligation for employees in the financial services sector because of their functions, which by their very nature require discretion.

The law already states that anyone who uses or discloses confidential information obtained in the course of negotiations without authorisation is liable. Case law has addressed the issue of confidentiality clauses by ruling that an employee not executing this clause after his or her departure makes him or her liable for the resulting damage, without the employer having to prove gross negligence. The clause may be accompanied by a pecuniary sanction, which may be altered by the judge if it is lenient or excessive.

This clause in no way imposes a non-compete obligation and, therefore, does not entitle the employee to financial compensation.

In practice, it is complex to ensure compliance with this clause; however, the more specific the clause, the more effective it is.

Secondly, a non-compete clause allows an employer to limit an employee's professional activity at the end of an employment contract to prevent that employee from working for a competing company.

Despite the specificity of the activities of the financial sector, it seems that the common law of noncompetition clauses applies.

Thus, such a clause may be provided for by a collective agreement, in which case it is a conventional non-compete obligation. To be enforceable, the employee must have been informed of the existence of the applicable collective agreement. In this case, article 35 of Chapter I of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for financial markets of 11 June 2010 provides for a non-compete obligation.

The non-compete clause is, in the majority of cases, contractual (ie, present in the employee’s employment contract). To be valid, this clause must meet various cumulative conditions to be compatible with the principle of freedom to work.

It must be essential to the protection of the legitimate interests of the company, limited in time and space, take into account the specificities of the employee's job, and include an obligation for the employer to pay the employee meaningful financial compensation. All these conditions are cumulative, and the employer cannot unilaterally extend the scope of the clause, otherwise it is null and void. Given the specificity of the activity of companies in the financial services sector, the condition of protection of the legitimate interests of the company would be met. However, taking into account the specificities of the employee's job may undermine such a clause if it is proven that his or her training and experience would prevent him or her from finding a job. The company's interest in imposing a noncompete clause must therefore be demonstrated.

The judge may restrict the application of the non-compete clause by limiting its effect in time, space or other terms when it does not allow the employee to engage in an activity consistent with his or her training and experience. However, the scope of application of the clause cannot be reduced by the judge if only the nullity of the clause has been invoked by the employee. If the non-compete clause is not enforced, the employer may take summary proceedings against the former employee who does not respect it, and also against the employee's new employer if they were hired with full knowledge of the facts, or if they continue to be employed after learning of the clause.

The employer may waive the clause if this is explicit and results from an unequivocal will. In the specific case of contractual termination, the employer who wishes to waive the clause must do so no later than the termination date set in the agreement.

Finally, concerning the non-solicitation clause, such a clause can be concluded between two companies through a commercial contract. These companies mutually prohibit each other from hiring their respective employees. Therefore, this clause is distinct from a non-compete clause and does not meet its conditions of validity. However, it must be proportionate to the legitimate interests to be protected given the purpose of the contract.

Post-contractual non-compete obligations will typically only be binding when a severance payment is agreed upon that amounts to at least 50% of the pro-rated annual remuneration that the employee received before the obligation comes into force). It is advisable to regularly review for which roles such arrangements are agreed upon as they can be costly, and a unilateral waiver does not automatically eliminate the obligation to pay compensation, only if sufficient advance notice is given.

In the financial services sector, the severance payment for non-competition covenants is considered variable remuneration and subject to the same regulatory compensation rules (for example, section 5 paragraph 6 sentence 1 IVV, section 6 paragraph 4 No. 2 Investment Firm Remuneration Ordinance). However, severance payments do not have to be factored into the ratio of variable to fixed remuneration according to section 25a paragraph 5 sentences 2 to 5 KWG if, subject to section 74 paragraph 2 of the German Commercial Code, the payments do not exceed the total fixed remuneration originally owed.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. The rules concerning post-termination restrictive covenants are governed by common law principles in which they will only be enforced if the restriction is necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate business interest and is reasonable in scope and duration.

Post-termination non-competes are not enforceable, as they are treated as a restraint of trade. Courts have given prevalence to the livelihood of the employee over the employer’s interests. However, a reasonable non-solicit restriction may be enforceable in India.[1]

Employees in financial services are also bound by post-employment (for both resignation and retirement) obligations.[2] RBI employees[3] who cease to be in service should not accept or undertake “commercial employment”[4] for one year from the date on which they cease to be in service without the prior approval of the concerned authority. For SEBI employees[5], the cooling-off period is also one year. “Commercial employment”[6] broadly includes employment in any company or setting up their own practice without having professional qualifications and relying only on official experience. Such engagement may bestow an unfair advantage upon clients by virtue of the ex-employees’ prior experience at the organisation. The grant of prior approval by the concerned authority is dependent on whether there is any ensuing conflict of interest from such engagement.

No there are no bespoke rules that apply. Post termination restrictions in Ireland are void as being in restraint of trade unless it can be shown that the restrictions are necessary to protect an employer's legitimate proprietary interest and they are proportionate and reasonable in their scope and duration to achieve that protection[i].

[i] Law as of 15 April 2024

The IoM FSA does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. Post-termination restrictive covenants will be a matter of contract and will typically include non-compete, non-solicitation and non-dealing restrictions. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. Restraint of trade provisions are, in principle, contrary to public policy as a result of which it is for the employer to justify the length and scope of the restrictive covenant and show that it goes no further than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. If a restraint is considered to be excessive, the courts will not generally rewrite or modify it to make it enforceable and, therefore, the whole of a defective covenant could fall away or be of no effect.

There are no particular rules or legal provisions concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. Nevertheless, it is common practice to execute termination agreements with officers and general managers whereby non-disclosure, non-compete and non-solicitation provisions are set forth by the parties. The use of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in termination agreements is only recommended for very specific employees and must be negotiated when the employment is terminated.

Plain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions binding employees after termination are not enforceable under Mexican law, because the Mexican Constitution grants individuals the right to perform any job, industry, commerce or work as long it is legal and not prohibited by a judicial or governmental decision.

Post-employment non-compete obligations, which are treated as an exception, must be agreed upon in connection to specific activities that may be deemed unfair competition, and may be enforced with economic compensation.

The period of enforceability must be proportional to:

• the number of years of employment;
• the level of information and importance of the position;
• the economic compensation; and
• the scope of the non-compete obligations.

Unfair competition and solicitation – either for business, or to induce other individuals to leave the company, while the employment contract between an individual and employer is in effect – may be considered misconduct. This misconduct is a cause of termination without notice for the company, and therefore it is feasible to enforce it.

The terms and conditions must be specifically addressed in writing, within the employment termination agreement, making express reference to the importance of the information, potential competition, activities that may be deemed unfair competition, intellectual property, and commercial advantages. The compensation paid is usually similar to or above the income of the employee while he or she was active with the company. Clawback and damages payments for breach of contract are standard practices.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for financial services employees.

Singapore law in relation to post-termination restrictive covenants is of general application and not specific to the financial services sector. Such restraints are prima facie void, but may be valid and enforceable if they are reasonable (both in the interests of the parties and the public), and if they go no further than what is necessary to protect a party’s legitimate proprietary interest.

The Singapore Courts have recognised that an employer has legitimate proprietary interests in its trade connections (commonly protected by restraints against the solicitation of clients or customers); the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce (commonly protected by restraints against the poaching of employees); and its confidential information and trade secrets (commonly protected by confidentiality restraints). This is not a closed list.

Non-competition clauses are however relatively more difficult to enforce as compared to other restrictive covenants, and they may not be enforceable at all under Singapore law as it presently stands if an employer’s legitimate proprietary interests are already covered by other restraints. Even then, it may still be possible for the employer to obtain an ex parte interim injunction for non-competition though.

Guidelines on restrictive covenants are also expected to be released in the second half of 2024, which will look to shape norms and provide employers and employees with guidance regarding the inclusion and enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. 

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.

The SM&CR does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in the UK to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. The only caveat to this is that firms should ensure that such terms do not include any provision that might conflict with the regulatory duties of either the firm or the employee. This will be a rare occurrence in practice for most types of restrictive covenant, but could arise in respect of post-termination contractual obligations that are closely associated with restrictive covenants, namely those relating to confidentiality. As such, firms should ensure that confidentiality clauses in employment contracts or other agreements such as NDAs include appropriate carve-outs.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants varies greatly depending on applicable state law. Many states impose specific requirements or limitations on enforceable covenants.

FINRA-regulated firms must comply with additional regulations:

• FINRA rules prohibit interference with a customer’s choice to follow a former representative during a change in employment where there is no existing dispute with the customer about the account. The FINRA-registered agent must help transfer a customer’s account in the event of such a customer request. Note that this only explicitly affects requests by customers and not solicitation by a representative. A non-solicit provision might be upheld whereas a non-compete might not.

• Broker-dealer firms that are signatories to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting are subject to additional requirements. Under this protocol, a departing employee may be permitted to take certain information regarding clients they serviced while at the firm to a new employer and use that information to solicit clients. Non-signatories are not bound to this protocol and can sue departing brokers for violating the terms of otherwise enforceable covenants.

Non-competes and so-called garden leave provisions are regularly included in termination documents. The enforceability of these covenants vary based on jurisdiction, with courts evaluating provisions based on duration and geographic scope.

New York

New York law disfavours non-compete agreements as a general rule. However, such agreements may be enforceable if the restrictions are reasonable and are intended to protect a legitimate interest. A court can enforce a non-compete only if the covenant:

• is no greater than required to protect an employer’s legitimate interests;
• does not impose undue hardship on the employee;
• does not cause injury to the public; or
• is reasonable in duration and geographic scope.

California

California law does not allow post-employment non-compete or non-solicit agreements except agreements involving the sale or dissolution of a business. California law protects employer confidential information and prohibits current or former employees from using employer confidential information in the solicitation of employees.