The 2019 session was a busy one for the Arkansas General Assembly, as the state enacted at least nine labor and employment-related measures in its recently concluded legislative session. These laws range from codifying the definition for independent contractor to banning microchipping as a condition of employment. The following provides an overview of these new laws, most of which will take effect in July 2019.
Articles about Arkansas Labor And Employment Law.
By overwhelming majorities, voters in Arkansas and Missouri have approved incremental minimum wage increases over the next several years.
The Eight Circuit has concluded that the Arkansas Supreme Court would likely adopt the majority rule that a covenant not to compete can be assigned to the purchaser of a business. Stuart C. Irby Company, Inc. v. Tipton, No. 14-1970 and 14-2682 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015) The appellate court reversed an across-the board win for defendants in this Arkansas non-compete dispute, disagreeing with the district court on almost every point.
Arkansas has a new non-compete law. James H. Stock, a shareholder in our Memphis office, has written an article on the Jackson Lewis website about these developments.
On April 2, 2015, Arkansas enacted a new law (the Act)1 that greatly expands the enforceability of noncompete agreements in the state. The Act makes striking changes to Arkansas non-compete law.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court decision granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant in non-compete dispute based on Arkansas law. The decision in NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh rested in part on the fact that the non-compete did not include a geographic limitation and was otherwise overbroad as it would have prohibited defendant from “working in any capacity for any business that competes with the company” anywhere in the world. The district court found that the provision was unreasonable on its face, and therefore unenforceable as a matter of law.
A non-competition agreement that prohibited employees from soliciting the employer’s “past, present or prospective future customers or clients” is overbroad, a federal district court in Arkansas has ruled, striking down the agreement and granting summary judgment in favor of two employees. Morgan v. West Memphis Steel & Pipe, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-00015-BRW (E.D. Ark. May 20, 2014).