January 19, 2023
No items found.

Federal Trade Commission Proposes Ban on Non-Compete Clauses in an Effort to Protect Employees

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission— an independent government agency tasked with enforcing civil antitrust laws and promoting consumer protection— proposed a rule to ban non-compete clauses in the United States. The FTC proposed the ban in an effort to protect employees from agreements that place unfair limitations on members of the workforce and stifle entrepreneurship and competition. According to the FTC, approximately one in five workers is currently subject to a non-compete.

Non-compete clauses are contractual agreements that limit or prohibit workers from seeking or accepting particular employment, or operating a business, once they leave their current employer. Usually, non-compete clauses have temporal and geographical restrictions and are used by employers to protect proprietary information, reduce labor turnover and to discourage direct competition from former employees. Nevertheless, these clauses can not only inhibit workers from freely leaving their employment, but can result in restraints on pay, entrepreneurship and professional development. Noncompete clauses are generally regulated on a state-by-state basis where some states, including California, North Dakota and Oklahoma, wholly prohibit the enforcement of non-compete clauses. 

This proposed rule, if enforced, may propel employers to seek alternative methods to achieve the same results as a non-compete clause. Non-disclosure agreements, non-solicitation agreements and enforcing trade-secret laws may be useful tools, but likely won’t have as protective an effect for employer’s as non-compete clauses do.  

The proposed rule is open for public comment for a period of 60 days. Once changes are considered following the public comment period, should  a final rule be issued the FTC should certainly expect legal pushback from businesses and employers. 

white line

The Week in FFCRA Complaints: Yet More Wrongful Terminations and Retaliation

August 10, 2020
Leave
Disability Discrimination
As we noted last week, employers seem not to have gotten the message on paid leave under FFCRA and the two notable cases that came up this week both involve employer retaliation and wrongful termination against employees who were protected under FFCRA.

The Berke-Weiss Law Weekly Roundup: Black Pregnancy in New York City and School Reopening Reversals

August 10, 2020
Race Discrimination
Pregnancy Discrimination
We’re now a week into the expiration of the enhanced unemployment benefits of the CARES Act and the news is not good. Congress and the White House remain at least a trillion of dollars apart on a new deal, with the Senate GOP split, though their prized bit of the CARES Act, the corporate bailout, did not have an expiration date, unlike those parts aimed at protecting workers, such as the PUA and eviction moratoriums. Thus, with depressing predictability, there were a spate of alarming stories this week echoing the fears that tenant unions and activists have been voicing for months: by ending employment relief we are hurtling toward a cliff, over which lies massive, nationwide evictions.

The Week in FFCRA Complaints: Employers Do Not Seem to Understand Mandated Worker Protections

July 31, 2020
Leave
Disability Discrimination
t is starting to seem, from our perspective, that either employers have not been made sufficiently aware of the leave entitled to workers under the FFCRA or that they are willing to risk a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.