Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Non-Compete Conflict of Interest Clarification Amendment Act of 2021 (Washington D.C.)

 

As with many labor & employment 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.


On May 21st, Washington D.C. Council Member Elissa Silverman proposed the Non-Compete Conflict of Interest Clarification Amendment Act of 2021 (the “2021 Act”) that would amend the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (the “2020 Act”).  That 2020 Act bans all post employment and non compete agreements for D.C. employees as well as barring any policy or agreement that prohibits D.C. employees from simultaneously working for other employers.

While the 2020 Act has yet to go into effect, there has been confusion among many D.C. employers about the scope of this new law.  Never fear, Council Member Silverman’s proposal might do just that.  First, the 2021 Act would clarify that the 2020 Act does not extend to “bona fide conflict of interest” policies or provisions.  “Bona fide conflict of interest provisions” are defined as ones that “bar an employee from accepting money or a thing of value from a person during the employee’s employment with the employer because the employer reasonably believes the employee’s acceptance of money or a thing of value from the person will cause the employer to:  (A) Conduct its business in an unethical manner; or (B) Violate applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules.”  The 2021 Act would also clarify that confidentially agreements are not banned by the 2020 Act.  Finally, the 2021 Act would require D.C. employers to provide employee with notice of the 2020 Act.

At this point, it is unclear if the 2021 Act will pass (or be further amended.)  Stay tuned.


For additional information:  https://lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B24-0256

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

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

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