join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 10

Protecting Confidential Information and Trade Secrets When Employees Leave the Company

When employees leave a company—whether it is due to a voluntary or involuntary separation—their former employers may worry about the security of the company’s confidential information and trade secrets. This article answers employers’ frequently asked questions about the intricacies that arise when an employee with valuable information leaves the company.

Poaching Laws: Good For Elephants, Bad For The Uninformed Employer

Lawyers suing each other is always entertaining, but when it’s about employment issues, we take note. Very recently, Selendy & Gay, a newly-formed law firm, filed a lawsuit against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for allegedly violating U.S. antitrust law governing employee poaching (one employer taking employees from another employer).

Someone Call A Doctor! This Settlement Agreement Is Bleeding Out

A federal appeals court recently ruled that an overbroad “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement with a former employee can be an unlawful restraint of trade under California law. In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (July 24, 2018), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided a settlement agreement between a physician and his former employer because one provision imposed a restraint of trade in violation of California’s strict statute on non-compete covenants, Business & Professions Code Section 16600. The Court found that the broad no-rehire provision constituted a “restraint of substantial character” in two ways.

The DTSA’s Ex Parte Seizure Remedy – Two Years Later

Enacted in May 2016, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) created a new remedy that was not available under any state's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) – the ex parte civil seizure. This remedy permitted plaintiffs to obtain a seizure order ex parte from a federal court. Upon entry of the order, U.S. marshals would be dispatched, without notice to the defendant, to seize the evidence.

States Look for New Angle to Fight No-Poach Agreements

Attorneys general in ten states and the District of Columbia have recently launched an investigation into the employment practices of eight fast-food franchises. The group sent a joint letter to the companies requesting information on the companies’ use of restrictive covenants including “‘employee non-competition,’ 'no solicitation,' 'no poach,' 'no hire,' or 'no switching' agreements (collectively referred to as ‘No Poach Agreements’).”

Antitrust Director Signals Heightened Focus On Deterring No-Poach Agreements In Healthcare Industry

As we have reported in previous articles, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has repeatedly reaffirmed its intent to criminally prosecute companies that restrict labor market competition through the use of unlawful no-poach and wage-fixing agreements.

A “Crowbar to Get Everything”: Motorola v. Hytera and the Issues with Imaging Computers in Discovery

In an interesting 15-page discovery order, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole of the Northern District of Illinois rejected Motorola’s attempt to obtain images of the computers of a number of Hytera employees. Motorola has brought claims against Hytera, alleging that the defendant misappropriated Motorola trade secrets to develop a two-way radio. Hytera filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired on the claims. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and authorized discovery solely on the statute of limitations issue, namely whether Motorola was entitled to an equitable tolling exception based on Hytera fraudulently concealing its activity.

The Latest On State-Level Noncompete Reform

Earlier this year, Vermont legislators introduced House Bill 556, an outright ban on noncompetes and any other restrictive covenant that restrains an individual’s livelihood. This legislative overhaul of Vermont restrictive covenant law is one of several state-level reform efforts proposed in the wake of the White House’s 2016 “call to action” for state restrictive covenant reform. Indeed, since the call to action, over a dozen state legislatures from across the country have proposed and enacted legislation reforming employers’ use of restrictive covenants. As more and more states answer the “call” and alter an already inconsistent legal landscape, employers who use restrictive covenants should review their agreements to ensure compliance with the states’ laws in which they operate.

Part III: State Legislatures’ Initial Response to the Call to Action - Proposed Legislation

In this final installment of our three-part series, we highlight restrictive covenant reform legislation that is currently pending before the state legislatures. The following states have proposed restrictive covenant reform:

Part II: State Legislatures’ Initial Response to the Call to Action

Following the Obama White House’s Call to Action in October 2016, state legislatures have been busy enacting restrictive covenant reform, particularly to non-compete laws. By our count, eight (8) states have enacted some type of reform since the Call to Action. Some of this activity may have been in the works prior to the Call to Action, but others are undoubtedly following the Obama White House’s Best-Practices Policy Objectives:

Jackson Lewis P.C. | Maryland | Maryland Employers, Are You Ready? New Sexual Harassment Law Takes Effect October 1 (September 12, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | Michigan | Paid Leave: Coming to a Michigan Workplace Near You (September 09, 2018)

Littler Mendelson, P.C. | Michigan | From Ballots to Bills: Michigan Adopts Paid Sick and Safe Time Law and Raises the Minimum Wage (September 11, 2018)

Littler Mendelson, P.C. | California | California Countdown 2018: Which Labor and Employment Bills Will the Governor Sign? (September 05, 2018)

Littler Mendelson, P.C. | New York | Significant Compliance Challenges in New York State's Proposed Anti-Sex Harassment Rules: What Can Employers Do Now? (September 07, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | New York | State Appeals Court Expands Scope Of NYC’s Marital Status Discrimination Law (September 12, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | New York | Reminder: New York City Employers Must Distribute Fact Sheet, Post Notice on Sexual Harassment Law by Sept. 6 (September 06, 2018)

Littler Mendelson, P.C. | Connecticut | Connecticut Continues to Extend Protections to Employees under State Medical Marijuana Law, Rejects Federal Preemption Defense (September 11, 2018)

Goldberg Segalla LLP | New York | New Legislation on Sexual Harassment Will Signifigcantly Affect the Handling of These Cases for Municipalities (September 06, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | Connecticut | Connecticut Court Holds That Refusing To Hire Medical Marijuana User Constitutes Employment Discrimination (September 06, 2018)