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.
Immigration Update: April 2022 — Uniting for Ukraine
Since our previous article on March 28, 2022, approximately 5.1 million Ukrainians have left the country and another 6.5 million have been displaced from their homes, but are still in Ukraine. The United States has taken some additional steps to assist in this crisis.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
DOJ Remains Committed to Aggressive Antitrust Enforcement Against Employers and Their Employees Even in the Wake of Recent Trial Defeats
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently suffered significant losses in two criminal trials involving alleged criminal wage-fixing and related “no-poach” agreements by and between competitors. These were the first cases ever where the parties have proceeded to trial after the DOJ pursued criminal charges under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act predicated on such conduct. The Sherman Act includes penalties for criminal violations of the statute that can reach up to $100 million per violation for companies, and individual defendants can face $1 million fines and up to 10 years in prison. While the DOJ’s trial setbacks raise legitimate questions regarding the efficacy of its aggressive antitrust enforcement agenda — particularly in labor markets — the primary federal agency tasked with enforcing criminal violations of federal antitrust laws shows no signs of pulling back on similar investigations and prosecutions in the future.
U.K. Update: Changes to Right to Work Checks
On 6 April 2022, the Home Office updated the codes of practice on preventing illegal working. All “Right to Work” (RTW) checks must now be conducted in conformity with the updated codes. Below is a summary of the methods of conducting the checks that are now available to employers conducting RTW checks.
RTW checks must be conducted for all prospective employees, irrespective of their nationality or immigration status. The checks must be conducted before employment commences in the U.K.
Continue reading “U.K. Update: Changes to Right to Work Checks”
Summary of Cal/OSHA’s Revised COVID-19 ETS Adopted on April 21, 2022
On April 21, 2022, the California Occupational Safety & Health Standards (Cal/OSHA) Board voted to readopt its COVID-19 prevention emergency temporary standards (ETS) incorporating changes Cal/OSHA posted in preparation of its business meeting on April 21, 2022. If approved by the Office of Administrative Law (which is expected), the revised ETS will become effective upon filing by the Office of Administrative Law with the Secretary of State. This is the third readoption of the ETS, which was authorized by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order and will be in place until December 31, 2022.
Continue reading “Summary of Cal/OSHA’s Revised COVID-19 ETS Adopted on April 21, 2022”
Massachusetts Employers Be Warned: Telling Employees “Your Wages are Coming, Your Wages are Coming” May Lead to Treble Damages
On April 4, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, in Reuter v. City of Methuen, that employers are strictly liable for treble wages as liquidated damages if they fail to make timely payments upon an employee’s termination of employment in compliance with the Massachusetts Wage Act. With its holding, the Court rejected a longstanding trial court precedent that employers who failed to make timely wage payments were liable only for treble interest.
The Massachusetts Wage Act
Section 148 of the Massachusetts Wage Act requires employers to pay unpaid wages to any employee discharged from employment “in full on the day of [the employee’s] discharge.” Mass. Gen. L. C. 149 § 148. As an enforcement mechanism, the Act provides a private right of action for employees and mandates that employees who prevail on § 148 claims “shall be awarded treble damages, as liquidated damages, for any lost wages and other benefits and shall be awarded the costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” The Act specifically defines “wages” to include, among other things, “any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement.”