Hiring & HR

Employment Agreement: build a starting draft free, or have me build the hire packet around your company

The generator below writes a clean employment agreement. It cannot know what your offer letter already promised, which clauses are void in California, or which included clause is now a civil violation. In employment drafting the danger is rarely a missing clause; it is an included one.

Sergei Tokmakov, California attorney, CA Bar #279869. Drafting employment documents since 2011.

Sergei Tokmakov, Esq., California attorney, CA Bar #279869
Sergei Tokmakov, Esq.
California Bar #279869

The most common way an employment agreement reaches my desk

You already have a ChatGPT or Claude draft of an employment agreement

The clause language is probably fine. The risk is the six things the model had no way to know, because none of them are in its training data or in your prompt.

1. Which clauses are void hereModels trained on nationwide boilerplate include noncompetes California voids, and since 2024, penalizes.
2. What you already promisedThe offer letter, the handbook, the equity emails. The agreement has to agree with all of them.
3. Your final-pay mechanicsSame-day final checks on discharge are an operations problem the draft cannot see.
4. How far your IP clause can reachLabor Code 2870 limits invention assignment; an overbroad clause is unenforceable by statute.
5. Whether arbitration still fitsArbitration clauses age badly; carve-outs and formation rules change, and stapled boilerplate is how they fail.
6. Exempt or non-exempt realityThe salary, the duties, and the classification have to match; a job title in a template checks none of it.

$750 flat: one employment agreement drafted or redlined, written comments on the California-sensitive terms, up to three rounds of email revisions. Scope confirmed in writing after a conflict check; nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship.

Short answer

Since January 1, 2024, a noncompete in a California employment agreement is not a dead clause, it is a live liability. Business and Professions Code section 16600.5 makes it unlawful for an employer even to enter into a contract containing a void restraint, regardless of where it was signed; violating it is a civil violation, and an employee or prospective employee can sue and recover attorney’s fees. Section 16600.1 separately required individualized written notices, by February 14, 2024, to every current employee and every post-2022 former employee who signed one. The generator below writes a clean California agreement. The clause a nationwide template quietly includes is the thing that turns a hire packet into a defendant’s exhibit.

What does a late final paycheck cost? A 30-second check

Labor Code 203 continues a departing employee’s wages as a daily penalty, at the same rate, for up to 30 days when final pay is willfully late. Put your payroll numbers on it.

The penalty caps at 30 days; enter more to see the cap hold.
Daily wage rate
Penalty days counted
Penalty per employee
Total exposure

The 30-day continuation mechanic is Labor Code 203’s, verified at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2 August 2026; the daily-rate arithmetic here is a simplified model on your inputs, not a damages opinion. Willfulness, defenses, and exact daily-rate math depend on facts.

Where employment agreements actually bleed

Five consequences, not definitions. Each one is a term I have watched cost real money. Tap to open.

The noncompete that signs you up for a lawsuit16600 voids it; 16600.5 penalizes including it; 16600.1 required notices you may still owe

Three layers, all statutory. Section 16600 voids every contract restraining a lawful profession, and its 2024 amendment codifies the broad Edwards reading: no narrow tailoring saves the clause, and the section reaches restraints on people who never signed the contract. Section 16600.5, added by SB 699, converts drafting habits into liability: an employer shall not enter into a contract with a void restraint, wherever signed; doing so is a civil violation; and the statute hands employees, former employees, and applicants a private action with injunctive relief, actual damages, and mandatory fees for a prevailing plaintiff. Section 16600.1 required individualized written notice, by February 14, 2024, to current employees and post-January 2022 former employees who signed such clauses, at their last known address and email; skipping it is unfair competition under section 17200.

The audit question. Not “would a court enforce our noncompete” but “how many contracts with the clause do we still have, and did anyone send the notices.” If the answer is a shrug, that is a cleanup project with a statute attached.

Verified against Business and Professions Code sections 16600 (as amended by AB 1076, Stats. 2023, ch. 828), 16600.1, and 16600.5 (SB 699, Stats. 2023, ch. 157) at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2 August 2026.

At-will that the rest of the packet contradictsThe agreement says at-will; the offer letter, handbook, and equity emails say otherwise

The at-will clause is two sentences; keeping it true is the work. An offer letter promising a “12-month runway,” a handbook with a progressive-discipline ladder, a manager’s email promising the role “through the funding round,” an equity grant described as “your first year’s package”: each one is material a departing employee’s lawyer will read against the clause. The fix is boring and effective: one integration clause that names the surviving documents, offer letters that track the agreement’s language, and a rule that nobody promises duration in writing. I read the whole packet together because that is how it will be read later.

The final-paycheck clock starts at the exit interviewImmediately on discharge, 72 hours on a no-notice quit, and a 30-day penalty for missing it

Labor Code 201: wages earned and unpaid are due immediately when you discharge someone. Labor Code 202: an employee who quits without notice is due within 72 hours, and one who gives 72 hours’ notice is due at quitting. Labor Code 203 is the enforcement spring: a willful miss continues wages as a daily penalty at the same rate, up to 30 days. Payroll runs on cycles; the statute does not. The agreement and the offboarding checklist have to make same-day final pay physically possible, including accrued vacation where it applies, or the calculator above becomes the employee’s demand letter.

Verified against Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2 August 2026.

The invention-assignment clause that reaches too farLabor Code 2870 draws the line, and a clause past it is unenforceable by statute

California lets you take what the company paid for and no more. Labor Code 2870 excludes from assignment an invention developed entirely on the employee’s own time without employer equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information, unless it relates to the employer’s business or results from work performed for the employer, and section 2870(b) declares an overreaching provision unenforceable as against public policy. The practical drafting: carry the statutory carve-out expressly, require written disclosure of claimed prior inventions at signing, and define “relates to the business” honestly for what the company actually does. An assignment clause that grabs everything reads tough and protects less, because its overbreadth becomes the argument against the whole IP section.

Verified against Labor Code section 2870 at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 2 August 2026.

The stapled arbitration clauseYesterday’s boilerplate, today’s carve-outs, and the motion you lose in year three

Employment arbitration agreements age worse than any other clause in the packet. The rules on what can be compelled, which claims are carved out, who pays the fees, and how the agreement must be presented at signing have shifted repeatedly, at both the federal and California level, and they keep shifting. The failure mode is always the same: a clause copied from a five-year-old template, stapled to every offer, never re-read, and then tested for the first time in a motion to compel with real money on the table. I do not reuse arbitration language without checking it against the current carve-outs and formation rules at the time of drafting, and neither should your template.

Honest scope note. Whether arbitration is worth having is a strategy call about your workforce, your claims profile, and your appetite for mass-arbitration fees, not a checkbox. That decision deserves its own conversation before anyone drafts the clause.
Questions I get about employment agreementsNoncompetes, notices, final pay, invention assignment, AI drafts
Can my California employment agreement include a noncompete?

No. Section 16600 voids it no matter how narrowly tailored, and section 16600.5 makes entering into it a civil violation with a private right of action and fee-shifting, wherever the contract was signed. The clause is not a harmless deterrent; it is a cause of action you drafted for the other side.

We have old agreements with noncompetes. Now what?

Section 16600.1 required individualized written notices by February 14, 2024 to current employees and post-2022 former employees, at their last known address and email; a violation is unfair competition under section 17200. If the notices never went out, the move is a quiet cleanup: inventory the contracts, send the notices, and strip the clause from the template, in that order.

When is the final paycheck due?

Immediately on discharge under Labor Code 201; within 72 hours on a no-notice quit, or at quitting when 72 hours’ notice was given, under 202. A willful miss runs the daily-wage penalty of section 203 for up to 30 days. The calculator above shows what that costs at your payroll numbers.

Can I require assignment of everything the employee creates?

No. Labor Code 2870 protects inventions made on the employee’s own time without company resources, unless they relate to your business or result from work for you, and it voids provisions that reach further. The compliant clause with the statutory carve-out protects more than the greedy one, because it survives.

Can I just use the free generator below?

For a straightforward hire where you know the offer terms and nothing exotic is promised, a generated agreement plus a careful read is a defensible starting point, and I built the generator so that it would be. Where I would not rely on it alone: executive hires, equity-linked terms, arbitration decisions, anything already contradicted by an offer letter or handbook, and any packet that still contains a restrictive covenant.

Free employment agreement generator: a starting draft, not a hire packetFill the form and the document builds in place with live preview. Word, PDF, and print export. Compensation, benefits, IP assignment, and termination structures.
Read this before you use the output. This generator assembles a standard employment agreement from your form inputs. It does not know your state’s restrictions, what your offer letter promised, or your exempt-status reality. It is not legal advice, and using it does not make me your attorney.

You now have a draft I have never read. It is a sound starting point and a poor finished contract, because it was assembled from your form inputs, not from your company’s promises and your state’s rules. If a real employee will sign this, the $750 flat fee covers me redlining exactly what you just generated, up to three revision rounds by email.

Send me this draft: $750

Work with me on it

If one agreement is all you need, buy the one agreement. I will tell you when the offer letter is the real problem, and when the packet needs less than you think.

Most hires land here

Employment agreement, drafted or redlined

$750
  • Drafted from your hire, or redlined against the draft you generated or received
  • Written comments on the California-sensitive terms: covenants, IP, final pay, at-will consistency
  • Up to three rounds of email revisions
Request this package, $750

Executive or multi-document packet

$1,200
  • Executive agreements, equity-linked terms, severance structures
  • Coordinated offer letter, confidentiality, and invention-assignment set
  • One complex or compliance-sensitive structure, drafted or redlined
Request this package, $1,200

Written attorney consultation

$240
  • One question answered in writing: the covenant, the notices, the final-pay setup
  • Send the documents and the question; get issues, risks, and next steps
  • The honest choice when you need an answer, not a document
Request this package, $240

Engaging the person as a contractor instead? The contractor agreement generator covers that side, and the classification question that comes with it. No free consultations, case evaluations, or document review.

See a contract negotiated, not just generated

How I work through a contract with a client: live preview, click-any-clause comments, track-changes suggestions. Fictional demo data.

Disclaimer. This page is general legal information, not legal advice. Using the generator, reading this page, or emailing me does not create an attorney-client relationship; that requires a conflict check and a written engagement agreement. Generated documents are starting drafts. Statutes change; citations here were verified against the primary sources on the dates noted. Employment-law outcomes depend on facts no document controls, and I do not guarantee any outcome. I am licensed in California. I do not carry professional liability (malpractice) insurance, and I give you that disclosure in writing with every engagement agreement.

Sergei Tokmakov, Esq. · California Bar #279869 · owner@terms.law