Restrictive Covenants

Subscribe to Restrictive Covenants via RSS
robert-stump-bwpgwJesFhw-unsplash

Wednesday, July 19, 2023
3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Central
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mountain
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific

REGISTER HERE

Confidentiality obligations and restrictive covenants are crucial tools employed by organizations to protect sensitive information, trade secrets, and competitive advantages. However, recent state law and regulatory developments and NLRB decisions…

Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! NLRB and Restrictive Covenants: Trends in Employment Confidentiality
patrick-fore-H5Lf0nGyetk-unsplash

The Nevada legislature passed new legislation recently that essentially bans all non-compete clauses in physician contracts while severely limiting the instances in which a hospital or psychiatric hospital may employ a physician as an employee, rather than as a contractor. Assembly Bill 11 was introduced in February 2023 and had passed both the Senate and Assembly by May. However, Nevada…

Continue Reading Nevada Seeks to Ban Non-Competes with Physicians
legal-g3a78d2a6e_1280

Over last week, two seemingly unconnected events happened that impact restrictive covenant and labor law. First, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum opining that certain non-compete agreements may violate the National Labor Relation Act by suppressing workers’ ability to engage in protected concerted activity. Second, the Supreme Court issued the Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. …

Continue Reading Did the NLRB Preempt Non-Compete Litigation?
test

The FTC is not alone in taking aim at non-competes. Yesterday, the NLRB’s General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo to all regional directors, officers-in-charge, and resident officers at the NLRB stating that non-competes in employment agreements and severance agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act except in rare circumstances. Specifically, Ms. Abruzzo claims that such covenants interfere with workers’…

Continue Reading The NLRB Joins the Fray: Another Attack on Non-Competes
2h-media-VnK5iT01HYQ-unsplash

The Board sent shockwaves through employment law in its February 21, 2023, decision in McLaren Macomb, which held that simply offering a draft settlement agreement with broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). We previously blogged about the McLaren decision and encourage you to read that post for a summary of the decision.

McLaren left unanswered a host of critical questions and, in the month following the decision, employers have not received any further clarity from the Board regarding how this decision will play out in practice. But some clarity—welcome or unwelcome—is coming. At some point this week, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo plans to release a guidance memo that will elaborate on the Board’s position.Continue Reading NLRB to Release Memo Clarifying Impact of McLaren Macombs on Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Restrictions

federal-trade-commission-seal-36081_1280

The FTC announced yesterday that it was extending the deadline to submit public comments on its proposed rule banning employment non-competes.

With the extension, the FTC will now be accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 19. Originally, the deadline for submitting comments was March 20.

Information on how to submit comments can be found in the Federal Register notice.Continue Reading FTC Extends Public Comment Deadline on Proposed Rule Banning Employment Non-Competes Until April 19th

2h-media-VnK5iT01HYQ-unsplash

On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) once again issued new precedent when holding that the mere proffer of a draft severance agreement containing broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). The severance agreement provisions before the Board contained extremely broad restrictions and arose in the context of underlying unfair labor practices (“ULPs”) that included circumventing a certified bargaining representative.  It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the Board will seek to invalidate more narrowly-tailored confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions.Continue Reading NLRB Targets Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions

federal-trade-commission-seal-36081_1280

On February 16, 2023, the FTC hosted a public forum for the purpose of examining the proposed rule banning non-compete agreements. The agenda included, among other things, opening remarks from Chair Kahn, an overview of the rulemaking process by the FTC’s general counsel, a panel discussion, and comments from the public. A recording of the forum is available here.

In her preliminary remarks, Chair Kahn claimed that the proposed rule would increase workers’ earnings significantly and non-competes are an unfair method of competition. She claimed that the FTC has deep expertise on non-competes based upon enforcement, analysis, and addressing public comments. During the explanatory session, FTC staff explained that the comment period ends March 20th and encouraged the submission of additional comments. Staff also explained the functional test in the proposed rule and indicated that the ban applies to any agreement that functionally operates as a non-compete, which could be an overly broad non-disclosure agreement or training repayment agreement. FTC staff stated that the proposed rule does not apply to “run of the mill non-disclosures.”Continue Reading FTC Holds Public Forum Examining Proposed Rule to Ban Noncompete Clauses and Business Organizations Sharply Criticize It

federal-trade-commission-seal-36081_1280

As earlier reported on this blog, Commissioner Christine Wilson, the sole dissenter in the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed rule banning non-competes, announced yesterday that she is resigning from the agency over her fierce opposition to progressive FTC Chair Lina Khan’s methods of advancing her agenda. In a Wall Street Journal OpEd, Commissioner Wilson took aim at Ms. Khan’s “disregard for the rule of law and due process.” She cited several examples of this alleged disregard for the rule of law and due process, including the FTC’s launch of the rulemaking process to ban nearly all non-compete clauses in employee contracts, affecting roughly one-fifth of employment contracts in the US. As Commissioner Wilson noted in her vigorous dissenting statement to the FTC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”), the proposed rule defies the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which held that an agency can’t claim “to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in its regulatory authority.” As Commission Wilson noted in her dissent, and as we have pointed out here and here, the FTC’s NPR purports to undo hundreds of years of state legal precedent—dating from even before the American Revolution—that employs a fact-specific inquiry into whether a non-compete clause is unreasonable in duration and scope, given the business justification for the restriction.Continue Reading “Noisy Exit” of FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson Signals Increasingly Contentious Efforts to Regulate Non-Compete Clauses at Federal Level for Foreseeable Future