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
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
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
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
On July 2, 2018, we defended against a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of our clients. Our clients were sued for allegedly breaching their non-compete agreements with their former employer and related claims.
As is often the case in non-compete litigation, numerous factual and legal issues were up for grabs when it came
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.
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
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 Illinois Attorney General sued Jimmy John’s over the use of its noncompete restrictions on June 8, 2016. The suit alleges that Jimmy John’s is violating state law by requiring its sandwich makers and delivery drivers (i.e. low-wage workers) to sign restrictive noncompetition agreements.
A copy of the lawsuit may be found here (Illinois