Tag Archives: Employment Agreements

FTC Announces First of Their Kind Enforcement Actions on Non-Competes

Posted on by
Non-Compete, Restrictive Covenants, Federal Trade Commission, Non-Solicit, Employment Agreements

The Federal Trade Commission made headlines earlier this month with its proposed rule banning non-competes. Other news announced by the FTC the prior day received less attention but has the potential to cause real headaches for employers – the settlement of three enforcement actions against companies for allegedly using non-competes in an unlawful manner.

These enforcement actions by the FTC are the first of their kind at the federal level and represent a significant expansion of the agency’s involvement in policing non-compete agreements.

While the proposed rule should be concerning to employers, it may never be adopted or could be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. By contrast, the FTC’s enforcement actions on non-competes represent a new and non-theoretical compliance risk that employers must take into account immediately.

Continue reading →

California Statute Does Not Void Promise Not to Compete During Employment

Posted on by

Non-Compete, California, Employment Agreements, Techno Lite, Emcod

Many believe that a non-compete agreement is never enforceable in California. A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal shows that there may be some protection afforded by such an agreement, at least as against competition during the employment relationship. Continue reading →

Blue Pencil Really “Just an Eraser” — Indiana Courts Cannot Fix Overbroad Non-Competes By Adding New Terms

Posted on by

Non-Compete, Non-Solicit, Indiana, blue pencil doctrine, Employment Agreements

The Indiana Supreme Court[1] has reaffirmed its narrow interpretation of the “blue pencil” doctrine, holding that courts may not add terms to an overbroad non-solicitation or non-competition provision to make it reasonable even if the contract has a reformation clause.

As the court puts it: “This doctrine … is really just an eraser.”   Continue reading →

To Delete or Not to Delete? Illinois Federal Court Helps Answer Question for Employees Changing Jobs

Posted on by

Illinois, Employment Agreements, Spoliation, Confidentiality Clauses, Trade Secrets

A common issue when advising an employee changing jobs is how to deal with company information on the employee’s phone or personal laptop. Should the employee simply delete it? Or should a forensic copy be made before deletion to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation?

A recent decision by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois gives comfort to those who opt for the more pragmatic approach of simply deleting the data. Even so, the case suggests steps that could have been taken to avoid litigation and a claim of destruction of evidence.  Continue reading →

New Efforts On All Sides to End Non-Compete Agreements

Posted on by

Non-Compete, Employment Agreements, Restrictive Covenants, Senate Bill 2614

Non-compete agreements are in the cross-hairs of both federal and state officials, who are looking to ban non-competes in many instances. Senate Bill 2614, introduced on October 16, 2019, if enacted, would outlaw most non-compete agreements as a matter of federal law. There would be a few limited exceptions. In addition, the Attorneys General of nearly twenty states and the District of Columbia have urged the Federal Trade Commission to use its rulemaking authority to end the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. Continue reading →

When Is a Trade Secret Not a Trade Secret? When You Don’t Protect It Like One

Posted on by

Non-compete, confidentiality clauses, nondisclosure, employment agreements, Illinois

In Abrasic 90 Inc. v. Weldcote Metals, Inc., 364 F. Supp.3d 888 (N.D. Ill., 2019), U.S. District Court Judge Tharp of the Northern District of Illinois provides a virtual checklist of the steps a company should consider if it wants its important information to be treated as a trade secret. Alternatively, the decision serves as a valuable reminder of what happens if an employer fails to implement appropriate protective measures. Continue reading →

The Devil Is in The Details: Second Circuit Reverses Injunction For Lack of Specificity Required by Rule 65

Posted on by

rules-1752415_1280

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit serves as a timely reminder of the importance of complying with Rule 65’s requirement that injunctions describe the prohibited conduct “in reasonable detail.” Fail to comply and you could find yourself with an invalid injunction. Continue reading →

Garden Leave– British Import Growing in Popularity Here

Posted on by

Non-Compete, Employment Agreements, Restrictive Covenants, Garden Leave

Long used in the U.K., garden leave is becoming increasingly popular with employers in the United States as an alternative to traditional non-compete agreements. 

Garden leave provisions take several different forms, but the key feature is that the employee is paid to sit out before starting his or her new job. The payment of compensation mitigates the impact on the employee, especially as compared to a non-compete where no payment is required and the employee may suffer a significant loss of earnings. Garden leaves are also generally shorter than non-competes—30 to 90 days—rather than one or two years as with many non-competes. Continue reading →

Evidence Does Not Support Nationwide Injunction Against Competition by Former Employee

Posted on by

Confidentiality Clauses, Non-Compete, Restrictive Covenant, Employment Agreements, Nevada

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed an injunction entered by a district court, when it found the employer failed to put on sufficient evidence to justify an injunction enforcing a 50-state non-compete against a former employee. Here’s what happened. Continue reading →

Forfeiture of $2.6MM in Comp for Failing to Clean Out Home Office May Not Pass Muster

Posted on by

Non-Compete, Nondisclosure, Employment Agreements, Minnesota, Restrictive Covenants

In the recent case of Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc., No. A16-1829, 2018 BL 263415 (July 25, 2018), the Minnesota Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether a 25+ year employee’s failure to return all of his employer’s property immediately upon termination justified the forfeiture of $2.6MM in compensation. The case reminds us once again that employment agreements will not always be enforced as drafted. Continue reading →