Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Assembly Bill 149 (Nevada)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.

This is one to keep an eye on.


Current Status:  Earlier in February, Assembly Bill 149 was introduced in the Nevada State Legislature which seeks to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in the state.  Under the proposed bill, a clear cut line in regard to the duration of non-competes would be established.  In particular, this bill would make void any non-compete agreement if the agreement prohibited an employee "from pursuing a similar vocation in competition with or becoming employed by a competitor of his or her [present] employer for a period of more than three months after the termination of the employment of the employee."  

Under current law, the restraint of trade duration must be "reasonable" to be enforceable.  Although this can be quite subjective, the Nevada Supreme Court has given some guidance on the interpretation of "reasonable" and has previously held that a non-compete agreement is reasonable if the restraint is not "greater that is required for the protection of the person for whose benefit the restraint is imposed" and does not impose an undue hardship on the person being restricted by the non-compete.  In particular, a court interpreting a non-compete agreement in Nevada is to look at the duration of the restriction, the territory in which the employee is restrained from employment, and the type of employment that the employee is restrained from pursuing.

Looking Ahead:  Readers might recall a case from the Nevada Supreme Court last year in which the Court held that it was not the role of the judiciary to "blue pencil" an agreement to make it enforceable.  Instead, the Court held that it would take an all or nothing approach in regard to whether to enforce non-compete agreements.  This particular bill, which would seek to become effective on July 1, 2017, has been referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor for further review and debate.  Stay tuned as Nevada has certainly been one of the more proactive states in recent memory in regard to developments with non-compete agreements.


For additional information on the Assembly Bill:  https://www.legiscan.com/NV/text/AB149/2017

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more