A FlexJobs report showed 60% of respondents said a company’s political stance factors into their decision to work for it.
Archives for October 17, 2024
[UK] Lawsuit Over Workplace Farewell Card Backfires Spectacularly
After suing her ex-employer over not getting a farewell card, a woman got roasted by judge for “conspiracy-theory mentality” instead.
Workplace Law After ‘Loper’: Will Organizations Face a Wider Regulatory Gap Between Conflicting Data Privacy and Security Laws?
The Loper Bright decision could challenge Congress in passing particular and forward-thinking data privacy and security laws.
Nonimmigrant Visas 101 for Employers
As employers look to enhance and strengthen their workforce, nonimmigrant visas can offer opportunities for hiring foreign national employees at all levels. When employers learn that applicants will need sponsorship for work authorization during the job application process, they will need to assess if and how they can utilize nonimmigrant visas, which allow foreign nationals to lawfully enter the United States to work temporarily.
Where Are People Working Remotely?
Midsize metropolitan areas saw the largest increases in the share of remote workers over the past decade, according to a study.
Will AI Replace Your Job? The Critical Skill You Need To Stay Employed
How curiosity, the one skill AI can’t replicate, will keep you relevant in the workforce. Top innovators share why embracing curiosity is critical for job security.
7 Soft Skills To Put On Your Resume In 2024
Soft skills are indispensable to your career growth. Here are seven soft skills you should put in your resume in 2024, along with examples of how to include them.
The Unique Work Schedule Needs of Hourly Employees » CBIA
Far more than salaried workers, hourly workers are faced with a binary decision between personal and professional needs.
Home Depot Plans to Make Every Employee, Including Executives, Work in Stores. It’s an Absolutely Brilliant Move
Cleaning up customer messes is a great use of time for corporate employees–seriously.
Applicant Tracking Systems Are Crushing Workers’ Dreams of Getting Hired
AI automated candidate screening is turning job searches into dead ends.
Exhausted at Work? 15 Tips for Beating Midday Tiredness.
Here’s why you’re so tired at work and what you can do to keep that 2 PM feeling at bay.
8 ways to deal with chronic complainers
Here’s how to deal with that coworker who always has something negative to say.
2026 Diversity Visa: Are You Eligible?
The Online 2026 Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery for green cards is open until noon ET on Nov. 5, 2024.
Eligibility requirements, application instructions, and frequently asked questions are on the DV Lottery website.
Individuals from countries where more than 50,000 nationals have migrated to the United States in the
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and Equal Pay: What the Hit Netflix Show Tells UK Employers
The latest binge watch for many of us at GQ|Littler was the Netflix hit, “America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders,” which follows a year in the life of NFL’s Dallas Cowboys cheerleading team.
Former DraftKings’ Employee Loses Bet On California’s No Non-Compete Law
By: Former DraftKings’ Employee Loses Bet On California’s No Non-Compete Law
In what might be the first published case discussing California’s newest anti-non-compete laws, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 16600.5(a) & (b), DraftKings successfully obtained a preliminary injunction and defeated the appeal of that order against its former employee to bar him from competing.
DraftKings, a Massachusetts headquartered entity, sued its former employee to enforce a non-compete agreement after the former employee quit his job at DraftKings, moved to the Golden State to take a similar job with the California-based Fanatics and sued DraftKings in California to attempt to stop the enforcement of the non-compete. DraftKings commenced its action in a Federal District Court in Massachusetts for breach of the non-compete agreement and other claims. It sought, and won, a Preliminary Injunction against the employee working for the competition for one-year in the United States (rejecting DraftKings’ request for a worldwide injunction).
The employee pursued an immediate “interlocutory” appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision, holding that the employee was bound by Massachusetts’ law even though the Massachusetts Supreme Court had previously deferred to California law in a similar case. See Oxford Glob. Res., LLC v. Hernandez, 106 N.E.3d 556 (Mass. 2018). In Oxford, the employee had signed a non-compete under Massachusetts law while living and working for the former employer in California, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court concluded that California had a materially greater interest than Massachusetts to enforce California’s public policy over non-compete agreements in that case. The Oxford court also found significance in the fact that Massachusetts did not have much statutory law at that time. However, in Draftkings, the Court concluded that the employee’s residence (not California), his work for Massachusetts’ headquartered DraftKings, his frequency of travel to Massachusetts, and because Massachusetts passed its own law to regulate non-competes, provided sufficient reasons to conclude that Massachusetts’ law (that the employee had agreed to) should be applied, and that under Massachusetts’ law, the non-compete was to be enforced.
Even though California’s law asserts that the location of the signing of the contract is not relevant, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the fact that the employee was a New Jersey resident (not California) when he worked at Draftkings and signed the Non-Complete, which called for enforcement under Massachusetts’ law, and then, later, quit to move to California to work for a competitor.
This case illustrates the importance of the “race to the courthouse” when a non-California former employer is confronted with the need to either attempt to enforce a non-compete or, conversely, where an employee or the employee’s new employer wants to invalidate a non-California non-compete. Even if a California court ultimately concludes that the employee’s non-compete is not enforceable, the employee and his current employer may be confronted with competing and conflicting orders from different jurisdictions and the potential consequences of violating an injunction. Ultimately, each state that allows for non-competes and the Federal Courts within them will make decisions about whether California’s public policy against non-competes will prevail over other states’ laws that may allow for non-competes.
California and Non-California employers should consult with counsel, such as the team from CDF, when evaluating whether to take legal action related to non-competes signed by former employees, especially non-compete agreements signed under the laws of other states.