In the best of economic times, some courts can be reluctant to grant immediate injunctive relief and enjoin an employee from working in order to enforce employee post-employment restrictive covenants. Now that we are in the midst of a global pandemic and an economic recession, that challenge has grown. Current economic considerations are causing some courts to weigh the “balance of harms” on injunctive relief applications in favor of employee defendants who are faced with the difficulty of finding other work in an economic downturn with high unemployment. Nevertheless, our review of recent decisions from around the country indicates that courts remain willing to consider injunction motions on an emergent basis to enforce restrictive covenants, particularly where there is a threat of trade secret misappropriation.
Category: Employment Litigation
Frequently Asked Questions on COVID-19 Personal Injury Litigation
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are advertising for plaintiffs infected by COVID-19, and new COVID-19 personal injury lawsuits are being filed at a steady clip. In recent lawsuits, for example, employees and customers have sought to recover for financial and emotional damages caused by long-lasting COVID-19 symptoms and, in some cases, death. These developments suggest that companies will likely see increased personal injury litigation alleging the transmission of COVID-19. Below are some common questions and considerations about this new type of litigation.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website
As Fall Approaches, WARN Act Lawsuits Likely to Heat Up
The global COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact businesses with no clear end in sight. While the prospect of a functioning vaccine may have a while to go, a spike in Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act litigation may be on the horizon. Furloughs and workforce reductions have been prevalent since mid-March, leaving millions of employees without jobs or on extended leaves while they wait (and hope) to be recalled to work. While only about a dozen WARN Act lawsuits have been filed to date, as layoffs extend beyond six months, new workforce reductions occur, and more plaintiffs’ attorneys shift their attention to WARN Act claims, the remainder of 2020 may become a hurricane season of sorts as WARN Act litigation could flood the courts. And as the days and weeks go by, an employer’s ability to successfully assert the “unforeseeable business circumstances” defense to providing less than 60 days’ notice of a “mass layoff” or “plant closing” has diminished and will only become more challenging for employers to assert.
Continue reading “As Fall Approaches, WARN Act Lawsuits Likely to Heat Up”
Ninth Circuit Rules Amazon Drivers Fall Within FAA’s Transportation Worker Exemption
On August 19, the Ninth Circuit delivered the latest guidance in the long-running debate over the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) scope. It held that Amazon delivery drivers can move forward with a nationwide class action — in court, not arbitration — because they fall within the FAA’s transportation worker exemption.
The case, Bernadean Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, Case No. 19-35381, dealt with a “last mile” delivery driver through Amazon’s app-based delivery program, Amazon Flex (AmFlex), who occasionally crossed state lines, but completed most deliveries intrastate. Upon starting work, the driver signed an agreement requiring him to bring claims against Amazon in arbitration.
Tenth Circuit Ruling Shows Bostock’s Impact on Title VII Employment Litigation
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which extended federal statutory protections to the LGBT community, many have wondered how that decision might impact other employment litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, No. 19-1063 (10th Cir. 2020), suggests that, following Bostock, courts may begin to recognize new claims or even reconsider prior limitations on Title VII’s scope.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
U.K. Employment Law Update: Confidentiality Breaches, Anonymous Witnesses and the ‘Last Straw’ Doctrine
Breach of Confidentiality Term in a COT3 Settlement Agreement
In the case of Duchy Farm Kennels v. Steels, the High Court considered whether a term of confidentiality in a COT3 settlement agreement was a condition of the agreement, in which case a former employee’s breach of that term would have entitled the employer to withhold payments due under the agreement. Continue reading “U.K. Employment Law Update: Confidentiality Breaches, Anonymous Witnesses and the ‘Last Straw’ Doctrine”