Skip to main content

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

It has been a busy week in trial, so I have not had a chance to read through as much as I would have liked.  With that being said, I found a few articles on one of my favorite employment law topics:  Non-Compete Agreements.  Each article has a different insight and look at non-competes...something for everyone.


The Wild Card in Non-Compete Cases: The Judge

For those of us who are litigators, most, if not all cases eventually turn on who the judge is and how things play out before him or her in court.  One of the partners at my firm says the outcome of every case depends upon what the judge had for breakfast that morning...I could not agree more.  This is a good article on a non-compete case that an attorney had before a particular judge and that judge's reaction to whether the terms of the restrictions in the non-compete were "reasonable".  



Non-compete agreements are one of my favorite legal topics.  I have written on the topic before and always enjoy when a case or well written article on the topic comes along.  This is one of those times.  This article has some thoughts that employees need to keep in mind before signing a non-compete agreement.  Even for those employees who do not have any questions or are confident they know what they are doing, would be wise to give this article a read through.


5 Attributes of Successful Non-Compete Agreements

This is a good article with five points on how successful non-compete agreements can be shaped.  Most of the five points are laid out with an eye towards possible litigation of non-competes, and how the non-competes can be drafted to avoid potential issues if contested in court.  It is always a good idea to check on what the non-compete laws are in each state before drafting (or signing) a non-compete.  In any event, this article is still on point and has some good ideas to keep in mind.

Comments

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

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

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