FordHarrison LLP • October 09, 2018
Because the laws surrounding post-employment restrictive covenants vary from state to state, FordHarrison attorneys are proud to present a 50-State Desk Reference which provides an overview of state laws addressing the enforceability of noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements and associated issues. State laws on this issue are complex, and this manual is intended to highlight some of the significant provisions of each state law. For a copy of FordHarrison’s 50-State Restrictive Covenant Desk Reference, please contact email@example.com.
Ogletree Deakins • September 05, 2018
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.
Brody and Associates, LLC • August 21, 2018
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).
Fisher Phillips • August 14, 2018
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.
Fisher Phillips • August 08, 2018
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.
Fisher Phillips • July 18, 2018
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’).”
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 18, 2018
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.
Fisher Phillips • July 04, 2018
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.
Fisher Phillips • June 12, 2018
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.
Fisher Phillips • May 31, 2018
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: