The FTC’s Rule banning noncompete agreements against the plaintiffs in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission has been enjoined. The court’s order signals a tough road ahead for the FTC’s Rule on a nationwide scale, although a second order is due by the end of July in a separate case. Nevertheless, employers should be aware of increasing judicial scrutiny and legislative limitations of restrictive covenants.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
J.O. Mory, Inc. represents a continuation of the Board’s attack on noncompetition agreements and a notable expansion to now target nonsolicitation covenants. Employers should take particular care to review the language of nonsolicitation agreements with covered employees to ensure that they are not likely to be construed to chill employees’ — and former employees’ — engagement in protected activity.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that, next Tuesday, April 23, it will be releasing the final version of its proposed rule largely prohibiting employee non-competition restrictions. See FTC Announces Special Open Commission Meeting on Rule to Ban Noncompetes | Federal Trade Commission. The announcement will be preceded by a vote by the five FTC commissioners on whether to “authorize public disclosure of the proposed final rule.” Assuming that disclosure is authorized, which is expected, the FTC will present the rule and then vote to issue it. As of yet, there has been no indication whether the final rule will be the same as the proposed rule or, if not, what the changes will be.
Continue reading “The FTC Non-Compete Rule – It’s Finally Here (Almost)!”
Employers should be careful before defaulting to Delaware choice of law for restrictive covenant agreements. Historically, Delaware law presented a good option, particular for Delaware entities. However, a series of court decisions out of that state have severely limited the advantages of that approach.
As we have written about previously, an increasing number of states, and Washington, D.C., have limited the circumstances under which employers can bind their employees to non-compete and similar agreements, particularly when low-wage workers (however defined) are involved. The courts, however, are not immune to the trend, as evidenced by the April 21, 2022 decision from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ADP, Inc. v. Levin. In that case, the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against a senior executive who had resigned from his Chief Strategy Officer position at his prior employer, ADP, to take over the Chief Executive Officer position at rival Benefitfocus.
The Washington, D.C. Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act of 2020 (D.C. Act) is on hold once again, this time due to emergency legislation signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser earlier this week. The new legislation pushes the D.C. Act’s effective date from April 1 to October 1, 2022. As reported here, the D.C. Act is one of the most comprehensive bans on employee non-competition restrictions to date. It not only prohibits post-separation non-competes for employees working within the District (consistent with what a handful of states, including California, already do), but also rejects common “anti-moonlighting” provisions that prevent employees from working for another employer, including a competitor, during their employment.
Continue reading “Washington, D.C.’s Non-Compete Ban Delayed Again”