Showing 8 posts in Non-compete.
Management Rights Clause Does Not Give Management Right to Skip Bargaining Over Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement D.C. Court of Appeals Says
In Minteq v. NLRA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held an employer committed an unfair labor practice under Section 8 (a)(5) by failing to notify and bargain with a union over its requirement that new employees sign a non-compete and confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. More ›
COURT DISMISSES CASE FILED UNDER THE DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT
Earlier this year, we notified you about the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and how it affects employers. On August 8, 2016, a U. S. District Judge in the Southern District of Florida dismissed one of the first cases filed under the DTSA, M.C. Dean, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, Case No. 16-CV-21731 (S.D. Fla.) More ›
Cracks in the Fifield Armor?: New Dissent Marks First big Challenge to Illinois' Bright-Line Restrictive Covenant Rule
When continued employment is the sole consideration for a post-employment restrictive covenant (such as a noncompetition agreement), the Illinois Supreme Court requires that an employee be continually employed for a substantial period of time. Generally, a period of two-years is an adequately substantial period. A strong dissent in a new Illinois opinion suggests that not all judges are on board with the bright-line rule recently endorsed by several Illinois courts. More ›
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Continued Employment is Lawful Consideration for a Non-Compete
On April 30, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took a stand on a hot-button for employers by holding that continued at-will employment is legal consideration that will support a reasonably drafted restrictive covenant signed by a current employee. Runzheimer International, Inc. v. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45. More ›
Employer's "No Re-Hire" Provision may Violate California's Non-Compete Laws
Pretty much everyone knows that California courts do not favor covenants not to compete. We even have our own state laws that address this very issue (Business & Professions Code section 16600). But what about provisions in employment agreements, separation agreements, or even settlement agreements in which an employee agrees to give up his right to future employment with the company? Is that lawful? The Ninth Circuit just considered this very issue. More ›
Illinois Supreme Court Denies Invitation to Review Restrictive Covenant Case
A company bought a business that marketed finance and insurance products to the automotive industry. After the sale, the company made an employment offer to an employee, subject to the employee's agreement to a two-year non-solicitation and non-competition covenant. The employee specifically negotiated a provision that the covenant would not apply if he was terminated without cause during the first year of his employment. The employee started with the company on November 1, 2009 and gave his two-week notice on February 1, 2010. The court held that a job offer itself, standing alone, is not sufficient support for a restrictive covenant unless there has been a period of substantial employment. Additionally, the court went on to create a new bright-line rule that "substantial employment" is a period of two years or more. Many observers believed the holding starkly diverged from established case law and hoped the issue would be taken up by the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 25, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the defendant's Petition for Leave to Appeal. Employers should evaluate the status of the restrictive covenants currently in place with employees and determine whether additional consideration is required in light of this holding.
For more information read Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., No. 1-12-0327 (Ill. App. Ct. Jun. 24, 2013).
U.S. Supreme Court: State Court Should not have Ruled on Validity of Noncompete Clause; Issue Was for Arbitrator
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Supreme Court erroneously struck down a noncompete agreement, declaring it invalid under state law. The problem with the state court's decision, however, was that there was an arbitration agreement in the employer's employment agreements; thus, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the state court should have allowed an arbitrator to determine whether the non-compete was valid or not. 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 ›
Topics
- Older Workers
- New York Labor Law
- Opinion Letter
- Hours Worked
- Compensable Time
- Time Records
- Commuting Time
- Equal Pay for Equal Work
- Rest Period
- Wage Order 9
- 24-hour shifts
- ambulance attendant
- meal period
- off-duty rest
- premium wage
- Audit
- automobile sales exemption
- fair reading
- narrow construction
- job classification
- job classification audit
- Temporary Schedule Change
- Fair Workweek Law
- New York City
- Black Lives Matter
- 42 U.S.C. s. 1981
- disparate treatment
- Racial Discrimination
- Severe & Pervasive
- Objectively Offensive
- Subjectively Offensive
- Massachusetts Equal Pay Act
- MEPA
- Attorney General Guidance
- Comparable Work
- Salary History
- Salary Inquiries
- Pay Inquiries
- Self Evaluations
- Florida Civil Rights Act
- Opposition
- Unlawful Employment Practice
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- PDA
- Childbirth
- Trans
- Transitioning
- Sex Stereotyping
- 2nd Circuit
- equality
- Zarda v. Altitude Express
- FCRA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Wisconsin Fair Employment Act
- WFEA
- Criminal Conviction
- Arrest Record
- Hiring Policy
- Substantial Relationship
- Protected Speech
- Anti-discrimination Policy
- Anti-harassment Policy
- Diversity
- Diversity Policy
- Social Media Policy
- Electronic Communication Policy
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- SCOTUS
- Securities Fraud
- Student Loans
- Gig Worker
- Gig Economy
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Borello Test
- Employee
- Exclusive Remedy
- Wis. Stat. ch. 102
- Tort Liability
- Temp Employee
- Temporary Help Agency
- Leased Employee
- Claim for Compensation
- Negligence
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Fraud
- Internal Complaints
- Form 300A
- Annual Summary
- Fines
- Willful and Repeat
- Serious Violation
- Other-than-Serious Violation
- 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act
- Students
- Interns
- Internal Revenue Service
- IRS Notice 1036
- Payroll
- Payroll Taxes
- Social Security
- Supplemental Wages
- Withholdings
- Tax Reform Act
- Tax Cuts & Jobs Act
- Income Tax
- 2018 Withholding Tables
- Joint Employment
- Browning-Ferris
- Right to Control
- Joint Control
- Essential Employment Terms
- Direct and Immediate
- California Family Rights Act
- Parental Leave
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- AB 1008
- Ban the Box
- Department of Economic Opportunity
- compliance audit
- ADA Interference
- 42 U.S.C. ยง 12203(b)
- 7th Circuit
- Disability Discrimination
- Union
- Union Organizing
- New York Paid Family Leave
- Paid Leave
- NY State Department of Taxation
- Serious Health Condition
- military duty
- Tax Implications
- PFL
- New York Average Weekly Wage
- Obama Administration
- Illinois Human Rights Act
- Emotional Distress
- Workplace bullying
- Extreme or Outrageous
- Salary test
- EAP Exemption
- State of Nevada v. US Department of Labor
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Incentives
- A.A.R.P. vs. U.S. E.E.O.C.
- employer sponsored
- Medical History
- mandatory
- Voluntary
- ACA
- San Francisco Parity in Pay Ordinance
- California Labor Code Section 1197.5
- Fiduciary
- Fiduciary Duty
- Professional Exemption
- Executive Exemption
- Outside Sales Exemption
- Computer Exemption
- Request for Information
- Highly Compensated Employees
- Secretary of Labor
- notice
- Domestic Violence
- California Labor Code
- California Labor Code s. 230.1
- Interactive Process
- Sexual Assault
- Stalking
- PTO
- Paid Time Off
- National Labor Relations Act
- Union Organizing
- Protected Concerted Activity
- Jefferson Standard
- Disparaging
- Labor Dispute
- 8th Circuit
- Vacation Pay
- Vested Rights
- Vacation Policy
- Vacation accrual
- Waiting period
- Pregnant worker protections
- M.G.L. Chapter 151B
- Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Employment Contract
- At-will employment
- only when rule
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals
- Department of Homeland Security
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- USCIS
- Consular Report of Birth Abroad
- E-Verify
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- handicap discrimination
- Drug Free Workplace Act
- Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act
- Rhode Island
- Hiring Practices
- Drug Free Workplace Policies
- Drug Testing
- Gender Nonconformity
- Sick Leave
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time ordinance
- St. Paul Sick and Safe Time ordinance
- Child Labor Laws
- Minors
- Minor Employees
- Work Permits
- Street Trade Permits
- Restaurants
- Grocers
- Manufacturers
- Teenage Labor
- Department of Workforce Development
- DWD
- protected class
- protected activity
- Delaware
- pay gap
- compensation history
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Public employers
- private employers
- federal government
- state government
- employer
- RIF
- Reduction in Force
- Circuit Split
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- enterprise coverage
- goods vs. materials
- Aiding and Abetting
- conviction record
- New York State Human Rights Law
- NYSHRL
- Work Schedules
- Fast Food
- Retail
- Fair Workweek laws
- pension plans
- religiously affiliated employers
- church plans
- ERISA section 4(b)(2)
- statutory exemption
- Anti-Retaliation Rule
- Safety Programs
- Workplace Policies
- Injury and Illness Reporting
- Workplace Injury Reporting
- Electronic Reporting
- Salary inquiry
- pay history
- racial equality
- ethnic equality
- fair pay
- Health Insurance
- Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Fairfax Memo
- American Health Care Act
- AHCA
- ObamaCare
- Trump Administration
- Employer Mandate
- Section 8
- marijuana
- SEC
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- age-based harassment
- disability-based harassment
- sex-based harassment
- sexual orientation-based harassment
- gender identity-based harassment
- Injuctive Relief
- final rule
- webinar
- workplace injury
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Exempt Employee
- Trump
- republican
- administration
- Right to Work
- Affirmative Action
- EEO-1
- Fiduciary Rule
- minimum wage
- executive order
- eeo laws
- cook county
- Section 7
- Unfair labor practice
- strike
- collective bargaining
- permanent replacement employees
- burden shifting
- convincing mosaic
- evidentiary burdens
- bereavement
- unpaid leave
- confidentiality agreement
- employee handbook
- employer policies
- misappropriation
- defendant trade secrets act of 2016
- pay equity
- gender equality
- gay rights
- lesbian rights
- unemployment
- Tipped workers
- Illinois Minimum Wage Law
- Temporary workers
- Employee Benefits
- Penalties
- posting requirements
- constructive discharge
- Administrative Exemption
- Wellness Programs
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- department of labor
- Transgender Rights
- LGBTQ Rights
- administrative warrant
- Confidential Information
- trade secrets
- Unpaid Wages
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Labor Code
- Discrimination & Harassment
- interference
- Preemption
- National Labor Relations Board
- Shameless
- Criminal History
- LGBTQ
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Medical Marijuana
- EEOC
- Arbitration
- Discrimination
- Agreements
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Disability & Medical Leave
- Expert
- Joint Employers
- wisconsin
- California Court of Appeal
- Media Mention
- Case Updates
- United States Supreme Court
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Opinion
- Independent Contractor v. Employee
- Removal
- Bankruptcy
- Judicial Estoppel
- Quid Pro Quo
- Freedom of Speech
- Exempt Status
- Picket
- Gender Bias
- Immigration
- H-1B
- News
- Affordable Care Act
- Collective Bargaining Agreements
- Eleventh Circuit
- First Amendement
- New Jersey
- Paid Sick Time
- Leave
- Eighth Circuit
- IRS
- Meal & Rest Break
- EEOC
- Nebraska
- Religious Discrimination
- Undue Hardship
- Arbitration
- 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Hostile Work Environment
- New York
- Sexual Harassment
- ADA
- Anxiety
- Disability
- South Dakota
- ADEA
- OWBPA
- Settlement Agreement
- Texas
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- FMLA
- Estoppel
- Retaliation
- Benefits
- Wages
- Mandatory Arbitration
- ERISA
- Non-compete
- Age Discrimination
- Accommodation
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Electronic Communications
- Texting
- Second Circuit
- Tax
- Wage & Hour
- Class Action
- Ninth Circuit
- Privacy
- SCA
- FLSA
- Volunteers
- Discrimination
- GINA
- Title VII
- Massachusetts
- NLRA
- NLRB
- Bargaining
- Seventh Circuit
- Union
- Undocumented Workers
- Health Care
- Supreme Court
- HIPAA
- HHS
- Wellness
- Harassment
- Supervisor
- Burden of Proof
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Pretext
- Internships
- PAGA
- Similarly Situated
- Termination
- Union Dues
- Class Certification
- Overtime
- Rest Breaks
- Exemption
- Third Circuit
- Fitness-For-Duty
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Labor
- Missouri
- D.C. Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- CFAA
- Injunction
- First Circuit
- Collective Action
- Meal Breaks
- USERRA
- Federal Contracts
- OFCCP
- Employment Verification
- I-9
- Gender Discrimination
- Title IX
- CAFA
- California Supreme Court
- Legislation
- President Obama
- 42 USC 1983
- Failure to Accomodate
- Reasonable Accomodation
- Employment
- Hiring
- Sanctions
- Sixth Circuit
- Michigan
- Race Discrimination
- Florida
- Workers Compensation
- Corporations
- Standing
- 17200
- Statute of Limitations
- UCL
- Subpoena
- Fifth Circuit
- Travel Time
- Deaf
- Dues
- Class Waiver
- Ohio
- Witness Statements
- Military
- Illinois
- Virginia
- Wrongful Termination
- Religion
- DACA
- Investigation
- Independent Contractors
- Eavesdropping
- Dodd-Frank
- Whistleblower
- Severance
- FICA
- Rehabilitation Act
- Right-to-Sue
- Policies
- Social Media
- Loss of Consortium
- Oklahoma
- Pension
- MSHA
- Medical Examination
- Exhaustion of Remedies
- Election
- WARN
- Title VII Retaliation; Faragher/Ellerth
- Salespersons
- EPA
- Equal Pay Act
- Racial Harassment
- Cat's Paw
- National Origin Discrimination
- Partnership
- FEHA
- Medical Condition
- Background Checks
- Gender Identity
- Georgia
- Ministerial Exception
- FAA
- SSA
- Sex Discrimination
- Education
- Misclassification
- Choice of Law
- Policy
- SOX
- Public Records
- Personnel Record
- Documentation
- Gross
- McDonnell Douglas
- Complaints
- RICO
- Maternity Leave
- Regarded As
- Equal Protection
- ADAAA
- Ledbetter Act
- Recess Appointment
- White House
- California Employment
- Agreements
- Seperation
- DOT
- FMCSA
- Attorney's Fees
- Reporting Time Pay
- Split Shift Pay
- DOL
- Punitive Damages
- Injuries
- Restrictions
- Stock
- Trial
- Verdict
- Back Pay
- Polygraph
- Damages
- LMRA
- VEBA
- Layoff
- Civil Rights
- Defamation
- OSHA
- AMD
- HIV
- HR
- Bankruptcy Code
- Secretary Solis
- Marital Discrimination
- Las Vegas
- Federal Register
- PTSD
- Iraq
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Forum-Selection Clause