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
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.
Michigan’s Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel joined 17 other State Attorneys General to respond to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) request for public comments. These comments concern the FTC’s public hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. Ms. Nessel’s response echoes a growing concern across the United States about the use and
A recent non-compete related law in Oregon caught my attention. Specifically, Oregon law (HB 2992), provides that noncompete agreements entered into after January 1, 2020, will only be enforceable against Oregon employees if the employer provides the departing employee with a signed copy of the agreement within 30 days after the employee’s date of termination.
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
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
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,