Menu

Showing 4 posts in Agreements.

Ninth Circuit: Because of Simple Contract Oversight, Executive must Arbitrate Separation Dispute

Most executive level employees have detailed employment agreements outlining the terms and conditions of their high-paying jobs. Putting such agreements in place is a really good idea for a number of reasons, even though it can be a cumbersome task during the "feel good" on-boarding process. But most companies work through the specifics of the agreement because certainty is better than uncertainly when it comes to contracts — especially when the relationship ends, which it always does for one reason or another (another bummer to particularize when bringing someone in). Because most of an executive's employment agreement is necessarily devoted to what happens when he or she leaves, these agreements often include a provision requiring arbitration to resolve any contract dispute (the validity of which is the subject of innumerable court opinions not tackled here). They usually also include a clause that establishes the venue of any dispute and which state law applies — or at least they should. One executive recently found out what happens if you fail to mention which state law applies — you lose. More ›

General Acknowledgment of Receipt of Employer's Policies Sufficient to Compel Employee to Arbitrate

In recent years, the courts and state legislatures across the country have been interpreting and enforcing laws regarding arbitration more strictly. What this means is that a lot of existing arbitration agreements no longer pass muster and must be revised in order to be compliant with the ever-changing laws. In this particular case, the employee's agreement to arbitrate employment disputes stood up, and it was because the employer had the right language in its policy documents. Read on. More ›

Separation Agreement Improperly Admitted to Prove Employer’s Liability

Many employers use separation agreements when severing the employment relationship with employees. These releases and/or offers to compromise are often protected by evidentiary rules which prohibit the admission of such documents when they are used to prove liability. More ›

Illinois Supreme Court Shifts the Playing Field for Non-Compete Agreements

For 36 years, agreements in which Illinois employees agreed to refrain from competitive activity following termination of employment have been judged under a standard requiring the employer to prove that it had a legitimate business interest for restricting post-employment competition. Two Illinois appellate decisions in 2009-2010 rejected this requirement, concluding that it had been invented by the appellate courts and never endorsed by the Illinois Supreme Court. On December 1, 2011, in Reliance Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, No. 11871, the Illinois Supreme Court put that idea to rest, holding that it has been a part of Illinois law for over a century. This was the first Illinois Supreme Court decision considering what business interests could justify a non-compete agreement since the early 1970s. This issue dominated litigation over these agreements throughout that period. More ›

Blog Editors