On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) that would “provide that it is an unfair method of competition – and therefore a violation of Section 5 [of the FTC Act] – for an employer to enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; [or to] maintain with a worker a non-compete clause . . .”  If this rule becomes final, it would effectively prohibit employers from entering into non-compete agreements—as broadly defined by the proposed rule—with their workers.
Continue Reading The Federal Trade Commission Seeks to Ban Non-Compete Clauses

On December 7, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act (the “Act”), which limits the enforceability of pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses covering sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes. The bipartisan Act was previously passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority.
Continue Reading Speak Out Act Restricts Use of Non-Disclosure and Non-Disparagement Provisions

This year has seen an increase in state legislation addressing noncompetition agreements (“non-competes”). Following Washington, D.C.’s passage of a ban on non-competes in January 2021, Oregon, Nevada, and Illinois undertook revisions to their respective non-compete statutes.
Continue Reading 2021 Mid-Year State Non-Compete Legislative Update

Last month, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Ban On Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020, which becomes effective next week.  This law is a statutory ban on non-compete agreements that has the strength of similar bans in California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. 
Continue Reading Washington, D.C. Passes One of the Most Robust Prohibitions on Non-Competes in the Country

California is well known for its broad restrictions relating to non-competition clauses applicable to workers. After a recent decision by the Federal Circuit, such notoriety may extend to the patent realm. Employers should beware to not fall into this employment agreement trap.
Continue Reading Employment Law and Patent Law Collide: Federal Circuit Rules that California’s Non-Compete Restrictions Also Limit the Scope of Patent and Invention Assignment Clauses

Earlier today, Eastern District of California Judge Kimberly Mueller granted a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the state of California from enforcing AB 51, which sought to prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. 
Continue Reading California Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Law Prohibiting Arbitration Agreements As A Condition of Employment

Restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements are increasingly under attack, this time by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Companies rely on these restrictions to protect investment in intellectual property, technology and employees. On January 9, the FTC suggested that employee freedom of mobility trumps all of these legitimate business reasons companies use restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements.
Continue Reading FTC Commissioners Advocate Restrictions on Non-Compete Agreements; Seek Comments on Potential Rulemaking

Earlier today, District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted a temporary restraining order that temporarily prohibits the state of California from enforcing AB 51, a law that would prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  
Continue Reading California Court Temporarily Enjoins Enforcement Of Law Prohibiting Arbitration Agreements As A Condition of Employment

Earlier this year, we wrote about a proposed bill in California, AB 51, which would prevent employers from requiring their employees to bring all employment-related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims, in arbitration instead of state or federal court.  Earlier this month, Governor Newsom signed AB 51 into law.
Continue Reading California’s Anti-Arbitration Bill Gets Signed Into Law

In recent years, federal and state law enforcement authorities have subjected “no-poach” agreements to increased scrutiny. Recent enforcement actions demonstrate the risk of criminal penalties and civil damages for using such agreements. In this video, Hunton Andrews Kurth partners Emily Burkhardt Vicente and Torsten Kracht discuss recent developments concerning the use of “no-poach” agreements, and