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.
While the final regulations provide much needed guidance and predictability for taxpayers, they also make clear that the next step for anyone seeking the enhanced clean energy tax credits is to tighten internal compliance programs to guard against penalties or potential loss of the enhanced tax credits.
For 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.
This decision has largely been cast as a win for Starbucks and a blow for labor. However, as other courts had already recognized, there is no language in the National Labor Relations Act that grants the NLRB special access to the powerful tool of preliminary injunctions. SCOTUS’s decision merely standardized that recognition across the federal circuits.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
On April 23, 2024, in a 3-2 vote along party lines, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule that will ban essentially all employment noncompete agreements nationwide. This alert dives into the key takeaways and what to expect next.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
The decision held that the basketball players were employees of Dartmouth because the college had the right to control their work by scheduling practice times, strictly managing away-game travel, and issuing a handbook of rules, which players must follow; and because the college compensated the players for their work. The decision dismisses Dartmouth’s contention that athletic clothing and equipment, which the school provides equally to all team members free of charge, is not salary because the college does not provide more of these items to its starters compared to nonstarters. While the Board rejected Dartmouth’s request to stay the election pending appeal, a full appeal of the merits of the regional directors will soon see the Board members weigh in on this extraordinary extension of the agency’s jurisdiction into amateur athletics.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.