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.
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.
Despite a strong jobs report on May 3, 2019, wage growth continues to be a disappointment. See Axios post, “The Mystery of Sluggish Wages.”
I don’t have all the answers, but I can point to at least a partial explanation for this mystery; the employment market is often contractually rigged by employers
A common mistake employers make in protecting their business interests is poorly drafted non-compete agreements. And frequently that mistake involves drafting inconsistencies. As explained below, inconsistencies provide a foundation for challenging the scope or outright enforceability of a company’s non-compete restriction.
In this regard, we recently defended against Christian Financial Insurance/Christian Insurance Group, Inc.’s motion
Will the playing field be leveled between employers and employees when it comes to non-compete agreements? Perhaps if anything comes out of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) hearings held last 9/13 and 9/14, which 
focused on how the agency’s competition and consumer protection approaches are working. One area of focus is whether enforcement practices need
On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from a former Stryker Corp. sales representative. The appeal arose from a case involving a non-compete agreement between a Louisiana employee and a Michigan employer.
The non-compete agreement contained a forum-selection clause stating that any dispute arising out of the agreement must
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
The saying, “you get what you pay for,” is cliché. But it is no less true. And it is an accurate cliché when it comes to online legal advice.
Various websites offer answers to legal questions from attorneys who register with the Q&A site
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