Photo of Kurt Kappes

Kurt Kappes

Subscribe to Kurt Kappes's Posts

Kurt A. Kappes is the Managing Shareholder of the Sacramento Office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice’s Complex Employment Litigation & Trials group. He has extensive lead trial experience in many complex litigation cases, including: class actions, commercial claims, trade secrets and employee mobility, computer fraud, non-compete, unfair competition, and Business and Professions Code Section 17200 actions. He has also represented clients in labor and employment issues, including advisory matters, trade secret audits, contracts, discrimination claims, whistleblower cases, and wrongful termination litigation.

Recognized by Super Lawyers magazine, as one of Northern California’s Super Lawyers, Kurt has argued cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, and the Third District Court of Appeals. He has also represented clients before the United States Supreme Court, as well as in administrative hearings, arbitrations (single and panel), writ proceedings, jury trials, and bench trials.

Follow:Read more about Kurt KappesKurt's Linkedin Profile

Greenberg Traurig recently published a multi-country survey InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers…
Continue Reading GT Publishes a Multi-Country Survey with the ACC on Covenants Not to Compete

Greenberg Traurig recently published an InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider…
Continue Reading Greenberg Traurig Publishes a 50-State and DC Survey with the ACC on Covenants Not to Compete

Drafting an effective employment agreement or release has become a challenging endeavor for a new reason. In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added another source of concern to those employers who deploy “no re-hire” provisions in releases. Following Golden, a fact-intensive inquiry may be required into the particular provision to determine if it constitutes “a restraint of a substantial character,” — here, whether or not there was a restraint of a substantial character of Dr. Golden’s medical practice. And, given the Ninth Circuit’s reading of California law, Golden may also have implications well beyond the employment context, possibly extending to certain commercial contracts as well, to the extent they can be said to restrain anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Broadens California Rule Against Non-Competes

If your client has California operations and isn’t aware, it could end up like the employer did in Shomit James v. Globus Medical, Inc. James demonstrates that the competition in…
Continue Reading GT Alert — Join the Party. Another California-based Former Employee Challenges Out-of-State Company’s Non-Compete Provisions as Unfair Business Practice

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that a former employee had misappropriated trade secrets when he left to work for a competitor, and granted the defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment. The case provides a useful overview of the evidence needed to support a violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).
Continue Reading Recent California Case Highlights Standards for Trade Secret Misappropriation Cases