Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Non-compete agreements are always a favorite topic of mine.  This week, I came across a similar type of agreement used in the employment context (although different in many respects), "No Poaching" agreements.  As Janette Levey Frisch writes, while some employers may utilize these "No Poaching" agreements, the recent crackdown by the Department of Justice in regard to the use of these agreements should serve as a warning to employers:  be careful, be very careful.

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


Salary History Bans: An Overview

HRDive recently published an overview of the cities and states that have enacted bans on employers asking applicants about their salary history.  This particular article provides information on each ban, such as when the ban went into effect as well as some of the specifics of each particular ban (including links to the text of each law/ordinance as well as any amendments.)  Next week, I will highlight an effort in Colorado to implement such a ban.  For the time being, this particular should tide readers over until then.


Study: Post Millennials Slower to Enter Workforce

The Pew Research Center released a study late last year which noted that in a tight labor market, numbers show that the post millennial generation is slower to enter the workforce.  According to the report, roughly one in five (19%) 15 to 17 year olds report having worked at all last year, compared with approximately 30% the year before.  In comparison, about 48% of baby boomers in the same age group worked in 1968.  Among 18 to 21 year olds, 58% were employed last year compared to 72% that reported being employed in 2001.  In comparison, about 80% of baby boomers in the same age group worked in 1968.  What do these numbers show?  A) many younger workers are prioritizing school rather than work; and B) many "older" workers are likely holding onto jobs that would traditionally be taken by younger workers.  In comparison with prior years (and generations), the decrease in the younger workforce could be concerning for some employers.  It would be interesting to see whether these figures continue to decline over the next few years or whether they taper off or even revert in the opposite direction.


Seventh Circuit: ADEA Does Not Provide Disparate Impact Claim to Job Applicants

Late last month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation in which the Court held that while the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") protects employees from disparate impact age discrimination, the statute does not extend the same protections to job applicants.  The case came about after a 58 year old attorney applied for an in house counsel position with CareFusion.  The job post stated that CareFusion was seeking "a business person's lawyer" and listed the qualification "3 to 7 years (no more than 7 years) of relevant legal experience."  After not getting an interview, the attorney filed his ADEA claim on the grounds that the 7 year experience cap unlawfully intended to weed out older applicants.  The Seventh Circuit's opinion here is rather lengthy, but worth a read for those interested in one of the more prominent ADEA claims as of late.


Employers: Using "No Poaching" Agreements? Tread Carefully...

Janette Levey Frisch wrote an article yesterday in regard to "No Poaching" agreements which some employers often utilize.  These "No Poaching" agreements are an agreement between competitors not to take each other's employees.  While these agreements make seem beneficial to some employers, Janette points out that they are unlawful as they violate anti-trust laws.  Utilizing a recent case, the article notes the Department of Justice is starting to focus on employers that utilize these agreements and cracking down on their usage.  The takeaways from that case are worth reviewing as are the three takeaways at the end of the article. 

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