Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board has previously been vocal (including in prior guidance ) about her position that certain non-compete agreements may run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. On October 7, 2024, GC Abruzzo issued Memorandum GC 25-01 reiterating her position and laying out the remedies she sees as appropriate when employers utilize such non-compete provisions. The GC also set forth her view on certain “stay-or-pay” provisions (e.g., educational repayment contracts, sign-on bonuses with repayment terms, etc.), which she largely believes infringe upon employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection and violate the NLRA unless they are narrowly tailored.
Read MoreWith just a few weeks until Election Day, employers must remember their obligations to provide employees with time off to vote and to inform employees of their right to take voting leave.
Read MoreOn April 23, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a Final Rule banning nearly all post-employment non-compete agreements, with limited exceptions related to the sale of a business and certain pre-existing agreements with senior executives, and requiring employers to send notices to current and former employees informing them that their non-competes were unenforceable. The Final Rule, which was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024, has been subject to a number of legal challenges. This week, in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas set aside the Final Rule, ordering that it not be enforced or otherwise take effect for any employers nationwide.
Read MoreOn April 23, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted in favor of a Final Rule banning nearly all post-employment non-compete agreements, with limited exceptions related to the sale of a business and certain pre-existing agreements with senior executives. As expected, the Final Rule has been subject to a number of legal challenges. Earlier this month, in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the Federal court for the Northern District of Texas granted a motion for preliminary injunction and postposed the effective date of the Final Rule as applied only to the plaintiffs in that matter, on the basis that the FTC lacked the substantive rule-making authority to issue the non-compete ban. This week, in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the Federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in the opposite direction, denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of enforcement of the Final Rule.
Read More