The Attorneys General of ten states are investigating fast food franchisors for their alleged use of “no poach” provisions in their franchise agreements, according to a press release by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, and as reported by NPR.  In a July 9, 2018 letter, the Attorneys General for New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requested information from eight fast food companies about their alleged use of such provisions.  The letter states that the Attorneys General “have learned that certain franchise agreements used in our States and the District of Columbia . . . may contain provisions that impact some employees’ ability to obtain higher paying or more attractive positions with a different franchisee.”  In other words, the agreements purportedly prohibit one franchisee of a particular brand from hiring employees of another franchisee of the same brand.  
Continue Reading

shutterstock_112451030At a time when an ex-employee’s newly created company was subject to an injunction prohibiting misappropriation of his former employer’s supposed trade secret, the new company allegedly used that confidential information on a few occasions in the course of providing services.  The former employer sued.  Although the trial court found no violation of the injunction,

A consultant of a company entered into a consulting agreement with a competitor. The scope of his consultancy of the first company involved dairy-permeate processing systems and the second involved lactose-processing systems. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota found that these businesses were sufficiently distinct such that disclosure of information regarding one business would not

In a decision marked not-for-publication, a Minnesota Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s invalidation of a two-year non-competition agreement signed by a long time employee.  He was discharged 11 years after he signed.  He then went to work for a competitor of his former employer.  The majority reasoned that the non-compete lacked independent consideration since

By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas

As part of our annual tradition, we are pleased to present our discussion of the top 10 developments/headlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law for 2013. Please join us for our complimentary webinar on March 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. P.S.T., where we will discuss them in

By Erik von Zeipel

On June 3, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant former employees in a dispute arising out of the sale of a business to the plaintiff former employer, and the seller’s subsequent starting

New proposed legislation introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives would invalidate effectively all employee non-compete agreements if passed. 

On February 11, 2013, Democratic-Farmer-Labor party members Joe Atkins and Alice Hausman introduced H.F. No. 506.  The bill was read and referred to the Committee on Labor, Workplace and Regulated Industries, a committee chaired by Rep.

While treats are in abundance on Halloween, a Minnesota employer recently received a trick when a federal court denied its temporary restraining order application. A Minnesota federal court held that an ex-employer’s apprehension that a former employee violated or would violate a non-compete and confidentiality agreement was entirely speculative and, thus, did not warrant a

By Robert Milligan, Joshua Salinas, and Jeffrey Oh

In another decision that underscores the circuit split regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (CFAA) language on authorized access, the Honorable Judge David Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has dismissedan employer’s claim that

By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas

In light of Valentine’s Day, a blog involving two competitors specializing in heart rhythm therapy seems fitting. The Oregon district court case is Biotronik, Inc. v. Medtronic, USA, Inc., No. 03:11-cv-00366-HU, 2012 WL 14031 (D. Or. Jan. 4, 2012), where the Honorable Judge Michael H. Simon, found