A Drinker Biddle Labor & Employment Blog
Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been appealed. We expect the Seventh Circuit will soon have the opportunity, post-Bostock, to weigh in on the intersection of Title VII’s sexual orientation and gender identity protections and its religious organization exception, related to a religious organization’s employment decisions. This could foreshadow future disputes and court rulings in this developing area of the law.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Exclusion from work, paid time off and rigorous testing requirements. These issues and more came to a head for California employers on November 30, 2020, after the California Office of Administrative Law adopted the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) emergency temporary standards. While many California employers have already implemented COVID-19 plans fulfilling previous requirements for reopening under state and local government orders, the new Cal/OSHA standards vary significantly from what businesses have likely executed to date. We examine the highlights as well as which internal policies and processes affected employers should revisit.
As England experiences a second lockdown, the UK Government has announced an extension of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (also known as the furlough scheme) to protect businesses and employees as the pandemic continues to adversely impact the economy. Additionally, new regulations have come into force in England which oblige employers to ensure their employees are complying with any requirement to self-isolate.
On November 17, 2020, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine issued two new orders in response to rising levels of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth. These orders (1) place certain restrictions on individuals traveling into Pennsylvania, and (2) provide increased and more detailed requirements related to the use of face coverings in the Commonwealth.
The travel order requires that all travelers entering Pennsylvania from other countries and states, whether a returning resident or a visitor, must have a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours prior to entering the Commonwealth. If the traveler cannot obtain a negative COVID-19 test, he or she must quarantine for 14 days upon his or her arrival in Pennsylvania or until he or she obtains a negative COVID-19 test result, whichever is earlier. The travel order takes effect on November 20, 2020. Importantly, this order does not apply to individuals who are travelling to or from Pennsylvania for work or medical reasons.
Most of the action in restrictive covenant cases occurs in the beginning of the litigation at the temporary or preliminary injunction stage when a company seeks to stop someone from doing something immediately. However, after the dust settles and the case moves forward to discovery and trial, money damages often take center stage. There are different types of monetary relief that might be available to a company that is harmed by a former employee’s unlawful competitive conduct – compensatory, liquidated, equitable, or punitive, to name a few. This edition of The Restricting Covenant Series discusses a potentially potent form of equitable monetary relief in restrictive covenant and duty of loyalty cases – disgorgement of an employee’s compensation based on that employee’s competitive and disloyal conduct.
Continue reading “Part 27 of the “The Restricting Covenant Series”: Disgorgement”
California is notorious in the non-compete world for its prohibition and extreme scrutiny of individual non-compete and other types of restrictive covenant agreements. These types of agreements between two businesses, however, have received less attention.
In August, the Supreme Court of California in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 470 P.3d 571, 573 (Cal. 2020), examined an agreement between two businesses and found “that a rule of reason applies to determine the validity” of business-to-business non-compete agreements. While some commentary on Ixchel has examined the validity of business-to-business non-compete agreements, the larger focus of the Ixchel case was “whether contractual restraints on business operations or commercial dealings are subject to a reasonableness standard under [California Business and Professions Code] section 16600.” Id. at 581 (emphasis added). It is important to note that the Ixchel court reiterated California’s strong position that agreements not to compete related to the termination of employment are invalid and not subject to a reasonableness test. Id. at 583-584. The Ixchel court adopted the reasonableness standard from the Cartwright Act (California’s antitrust law which generally assesses whether an agreement promotes or suppresses competition) for application to business-to business non-competes and further stated that its decision potentially affects all California contracts “that in some way restrain a contracting party from engaging in a profession, trade, or business.” Id. at 581, 588.
Continue reading “California Non-Compete and Trade Secret Catch-Up”