Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Non-Compete Edition


Non-compete agreements have become one of the emerging employment law topics as of late, as I have started to come across more and more articles on the matter.  In fact, an in depth analysis of a Nevada Supreme Court case from earlier this year was especially thought provoking and one that lead me to want to dedicate this post solely to this topic.  Even for the casual reader who does not come across non-competes often, there are a couple articles here that I think are worth a review.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Jimmy John's to Pay Illinois AG $100,000 Over Use of Non-Competes for Hourly Employees

Samantha Bomkampt at The Chicago Tribune wrote an article earlier this month in regard to Jimmy John's agreeing to pay $100,000 and notify all current and former employees that it would not enforce their non-compete agreements.  Readers might remember that controversy had arisen last year when it became known that Jimmy John's had non-compete agreements with its sandwich makers (and hourly employees) that prohibited them from working for a competitor for two years following employment at Jimmy John's.  The Illinois Attorney General subsequently brought suit against Jimmy John's on the grounds that the non-competes were "highly restrictive".  I would certainly call this outcome a favorable result for those who opposed the use of non-competes for these hourly workers.


Employers Take Note: Non-Compete Reform Is On the Horizon

It should not come as much of a surprise that non-compete reform is one of the hotter employment law related topics as of late (along with the minimum wage fight).  Sarah DeFranco notes that Illinois, Idaho, Massachusetts, and New York have all taken steps over the past year to spur changes to the enforcement of non-competes in their states...to the detriment of employers.  This article is worth a quick read for those interested in changes at the state level, as well as what could be expected in the coming year.


Nevada Supreme Court Takes Hard Line Approach to Non-Competes

Earlier this year, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Golden Road Motor Inn Inc. v. Islam case and held that if a non-compete is held to be unreasonable in any way, a court is to not reform or modify the agreement but instead find it wholly unenforceable.  The National Law Review has a well thought out analysis of the case and the implications of just how far reaching this decision ultimately is. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more