by Ariane M. Janz
Liquidated damages provisions are supposed to simplify non-compete cases, but disputes over the enforceability of such provisions can have the opposite effect, complicating the matter and adding uncertainty. If a court determines that the liquidated damages are grossly disproportionate to the employer’s actual loss, the court may refuse to enforce the liquidated damages provision as an impermissible penalty. Continue reading
by Mark C. Vanneste
What if an employee agrees to a non-compete clause but the employer did not realize it would be presented to the employee? It sounds unlikely, but would the employer be bound by those terms? Maybe. These were the circumstances in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan’s recent Eric Grant v Johnson Electric decision. Continue reading
On June 3, 2017, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval recently signed Assembly Bill 276 (“AB 276”), which articulates new rules and requirements for non-compete agreements, some of which fundamentally alter the State’s prior practices. The following is a synopsis of the new law. Continue reading
Often, an employee will sign an employment contract that contains, among other things, a non-compete and a set term. Because the parties fail to renew the employment contract after it expires, the employee continues to work on an “at-will” basis.
Later, the employee resigns, joins a competitor and begins a solicitation campaign in violation of the expired employment contract’s non-compete. The former employer files a court action seeking to enforce the non-compete in the expired employment contract. Is the non-compete enforceable? Continue reading
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) provides a new tool in the form of an ex parte seizure for businesses and individuals to safeguard their trade secrets after misappropriation has occurred. Unfortunately, many trade secret owners have discovered that obtaining this form of relief is no easy task. Continue reading
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court for the Commonwealth of Kentucky held that for continued employment to be deemed sufficient consideration for the enforcement of a restrictive covenant agreement, there must be a change in the employment relationship between the parties.