As most here know, House Republicans have seen fit to waste taxpayer money by retaining former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement of the law firm King and Spalding to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act.
As we also know, included in the contract for services was a provision prohibiting all King and Spalding employees, without exception, from advocating against DOMA and on behalf of the opposing Respect for Marriage Act (which proposes to repeal DOMA legislatively).
King and Spalding has two offices in California, which puts the firm in an interesting position since California Labor Code Section 1101 states that "[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics ...."
There are legitmate ways to restrict political activity. I'm a federal employee and, under the Hatch Act, there are certain things I'm not permitted to do (such as wear partisan political campaign buttons in the office, do fundraising for candidates and other such things). However, there is a difference. The contract between King and Spalding is just that...a contract. It isn't a law. Therefore it would, presumably be subject to any local or state laws governing employment.
You'd think the folks at K&S might have considered the consequences of their actions a bit more carefully. Not that they have a prayer of winning their case; the legislative record makes it entirely clear that the sole purpose of DOMA was to punish a disfavored minority. It will be difficult to make ANY argument defending such a law, no matter how much the defense attorney gets paid.