Employment Agreements/Non-Compete Policies and Practice

Subscribe to Employment Agreements/Non-Compete Policies and Practice via RSS

For healthcare provider companies, a critical question about the FTC’s decision is whether it applies to nonprofit entities. I recently analyzed the impact on the healthcare industry of the vote by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to move forward with a final rule banning non-compete agreements for an article in Modern Healthcare.Continue Reading FTC’s New Ban on Non-Compete Agreements and Potential Impact on Nonprofit Healthcare Companies

Join us on May 14 for a deep dive into top legal trends that general counsel should prioritize as they continue to navigate 2024’s evolving regulatory landscape related to labor and employment issues and developments. Our presenters will discuss various topics, including challenges related to DEI initiatives and disclosures and the SEC’s focus on separation and severance agreements. They will also revisit the FTC’s non-compete ban and provide relevant updates.Continue Reading Register Now | Key Considerations for General Counsel Webinar

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that on April 23 it will vote on publishing and then adopting a finalized new rule that will prohibit employers from enforcing non-competes against workers. Under the originally proposed rule, non-compete agreements that bar any worker from accepting competing employment or starting a competing business would be prohibited with some exceptions for a limited category of transactions.Continue Reading Register Now | The FTC’s Non-Compete Ban: What Employers Need to Know Webinar

On January 5, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that would prohibit employers from imposing non-competes on workers, and, if finalized, will have far reaching implications for many businesses operating in the United States. The proposed ban would make it illegal for employers to enter into or attempt to enter into non-compete agreements with workers, continue to maintain such agreements if they already exist, or represent that a worker is subject to a non-compete. It would further require companies with active non-competes to inform workers that they are void. Under the proposed rule, non-competes that bar workers from accepting competing employment or starting a competing business would be prohibited.

Join us for a webinar in which Bass, Berry & Sims labor & employment and antitrust attorneys will address topics and concerns pertaining to the proposed ban, including:Continue Reading Webinar: The FTC’s Proposed Ban on Non-Competes and What It Could Mean for You

On January 5, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission), an agency charged with enforcing federal antitrust laws and protecting competition, proposed a new rule that would prohibit “employers” from imposing non-competes on “workers.” The proposed ban would make it illegal for employers to enter into or attempt to enter into  non-compete agreements with workers…

In 2021, we saw the continuation of restrictions and limitations on non-compete laws at the federal and state levels. On July 9, President Biden signed an executive order advocating for the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) authority to prevent unfair non-compete practices in the workplace. Additionally, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, D.C. all modified or enacted new restrictions on non-competes, further indicating a broader legal trend toward limiting the power of employer form agreements and practices.
Continue Reading [WEBINAR] Non-Compete Law Developments and Enforcement Trends for the Coming Year

The legislatures of Oregon, Nevada and Illinois recently placed additional limitations on restrictive covenants, particularly non-competition covenants.

Changes to Oregon Restrictive Covenants

Effective as to agreements entered into on or after May 21, 2021, Oregon has further restricted non-compete agreements.  Oregon previously limited non-compete agreements to a maximum of 18 months from the date of separation and to only those employees who do the following:

  • Engage in administrative, executive or professional work.
  • Perform predominately intellectual, managerial or creative tasks.
  • Exercise discretion and independent judgment.
  • Are paid a salary (or combination of salary and commissions) that exceeds the median income for a four-person family.

Continue Reading Oregon, Nevada and Illinois Further Limit Restrictive Covenants

The economic repercussions of COVID-19 have been immediate and in many cases, debilitating, to American business across all industries, from food & beverage to manufacturing to healthcare.  Challenges faced include government-mandated closures of certain “non-essential” businesses and reduced demand of products and/or services.  As business revenue plummets, many companies are faced with the need to cut significant human capital costs in order to keep their business afloat.  Below are some options for companies to consider as they work to address reduced staffing needs.

Furlough

While the term furlough is used to describe various arrangements, typically a furlough is an unpaid leave of absence.  A furlough is often ideal for employers who anticipate a temporary need for reduced staffing.  Employees on furlough are still technically employed by the employer and, as a result, may be able to remain on the employer’s group health plan(s) if permitted by the terms of the plan(s).  Employers may require employees to pay the applicable employee portion of the premium during the furlough.  If the employer’s group health plan(s) is not available to employees on furlough, COBRA coverage would commence.  Also, many states allow for unemployment compensation to employees on an unpaid furlough.Continue Reading Workforce Reduction Options Amid COVID-19

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.