Employee noncompete restrictions are supposed to provide a company with a means to preserve its legitimate competitive interests when an employment relationship ends. But they can also be used by unscrupulous employers to make demands that outside of the guardrails of the judicial system would resemble extortion.
This post discusses a recent example of arguably
You may have heard something in the news about a former employee getting caught holding onto his prior employer’s documents after losing his job. This example is unusual, to say the least. And setting aside your political leanings, let’s look at how similar scenarios play out for the rest of us.
CVS Pharmacy Inc. sued online pharmacy retailer Capital Rx Inc., claiming the web-based business is trying to keep a former employee from working for CVS. The lawsuit, filed on 9/16/2021, claims Capital Rx’s noncompete agreement violates Massachusetts law.
CVS’ lawsuit highlights an all-too-common issue new hires often face – the surprise non-compete
President Biden signed an Executive Order broadly targeting anti-competitive tactics that disadvantage smaller businesses and people.
One aspect of this order targets the use of noncompete agreements. Under the Order, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is encouraged to ban or limit noncompete agreements.
Nephron Pharmaceutical Corp. agreed to accept $7.9 million to settle its trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against its competitor U.S. Compounding Inc., its parent company Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corp., and former employees.
For the defendant businesses, the case arose from actions that every company routinely faces – hiring employees. But the competitors
A business seller failed to convince a Michigan Business Court Judge that his noncompetition and nonsolicitation restrictions stemming from the sale of a Business should be enjoined.
For business owners considering or involved in transactions to buy or sell a business, the opinion from the highly respected Kent County Business Court Judge Christopher Yates, highlights
A recent court opinion is a cautionary tale for business owners and entrepreneurs and their attorneys about the importance of protecting attorney-client communications. It is also a reminder of how easily that privilege can be inadvertently waived and the downstream impact it can have on noncompete disputes.
The court opinion comes from a
Ecolab Inc. sued a former marketing manager, Preston Alexander, alleging he used stolen trade secrets to set up a rival business in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and related claims. Ecolab seeks the immediate return of its confidential information and damages for contract breach and trade secret misappropriation.
Ecolab’s
McDonald’s recently announced it terminated its chief executive, Steve Easterbrook, for having a consensual relationship with an employee. This termination presents a buffet of employment law and HR issues upon which one could devour. However, I want to focus on the non-compete restriction that Mr. Easterbrook ultimately agreed to upon ending his employment.
Is “continued employment” sufficient “consideration” to support the enforcement of a non-compete agreement? It is an issue present in many non-compete disputes. But it is also an issue that may be overlooked or (incorrectly) assumed to be a “non-issue.”
If you need a refresher course on what consideration is and why it matters, we’ve got