A former employee recently sued MedMar Inc. and its related companies. The suit, Greenswag v MedMar Inc., pending in the Cook County Circuit Court, alleges the defendants made misrepresentations about the employment opportunity to induce him to sign a non-compete restriction.
I haven’t reviewed the complaint, but these sorts of claims are often unsuccessful.
A recent noncompete case from Minnesota offers a cautionary tale for employers and cause for celebration for employees.
The case, Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, (11/6/17), involved an employer that ran a treatment center for special-needs sex offenders. The employer sought to enforce its noncompete agreement against a former program director (Stier).
The noncompete
Amendments to the Michigan Business Court S
tatute go into effect today, October 11, 2017. These amendments primarily focus on clarifying the cases that are to be assigned to business courts.
Also, the statute was amended to clarify a Business Court’s jurisdiction to hear business disputes involving equitable or declaratory relief. The amendment now clarifies
One advantage employers often have when it comes to non-compete disputes is time; Employers may win the war without ever doing battle simply by running out the clock. This point was a central issue in a case pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals that our law firm recently argued.
Specifically, on October 4, 2017,
Non-compete agreements are intended to prevent unfair competition. But they often create unfair advantages against employees and start-ups. And these unfair advantages adversely affect individuals and the overall economy. At least that is the take-away from a recent op-ed in the New York Times.
Specifically, Prof. Orly Lobel wrote in
Last week, ESPN laid off 100 employees. This included well-known SportsCenter anchors and popular writers who are subject to noncompete restrictions. A lot of ink has been spilled about the causes for these layoffs. See, for example,
A lot of ink has been spilled about the causes for these layoffs. See, for example, ESPN is
A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision highlights the important role employment agreements can play in defending against employment discrimination lawsuits.
Specifically, in Sams v Common Ground, when William Sams was hired by Common Ground he signed an employment contract. In that contract, Sams agreed that he would not sue the company one year
Earlier this month a federal district court judge entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a former Panera executive and his new employer, Papa Johns. The TRO arose out of a lawsuit to enforce the former Panera executive’s non-compete agreement. That agreement restricted him from competing against Panera for one year after his employment ended.
The decision to sell a company involves many considerations. One important – but often overlooked – consideration is the value that should be derived from having enforceable employee and non-compete agreements.
However, all too often, due diligence fails to critically assess the enforceability or transferability of non-compete restrictions. As discussed below, the value of the
Using a broad brush to draft noncompete agreements that are applied universally to a company’s workforce is increasingly coming under fire. And this exposes companies to unnecessary litigation risks, as well as legal fees associated with enforcement costs.
A recent example of involves Law360 and its settlement with the New