Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Pending legislation in New York (Senate Bill S3100A/Assembly Bill A1278B) will result in the sharp curtailment of post-employment non-competes if passed into law.  This development is concerning to many employers operating in New York or employing individuals currently living there, but for the moment, it is far from clear whether the current (or any) form of the bill may be passed into law.

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 (addressed in greater detail here), Oregon, Nevada, and Illinois undertook revisions to their respective non-compete statutes. These legislative updates are summarized below.

Last month, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Ban On Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (“the Act”), 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.

The Act applies to all D.C. private employers and applies broadly to most employees who perform work in D.C. or whom a prospective employer reasonably anticipates will perform work in D.C.  The law does not have a minimum salary threshold.  Under the Act, employers are prohibited from ...

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.

In what it characterized as an issue not previously addressed by California’s appellate courts, in Whitewater West Industries v. Alleshouse, No. 2019-1852 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that that California state law not only restricts non-competition ...

Two years after jointly issuing its 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals with the FTC, the DOJ is now taking active steps to clarify its stance on no-poaching agreements.  On January 25, 2019, the DOJ filed a Notice of Intent to File a Statement of Interest in three different class action lawsuits brought by employees of fast-food franchises against their employers alleging that no-poaching agreements in franchise agreements violate antitrust law.

When negotiating a settlement agreement in an employment dispute, “no rehire” language is often a standard term.  This language typically bars the litigating employee from seeking re-employment with the former employer.  However, in California, at least one “no rehire” provision was invalidated because it was not narrowly tailored to the employer at issue.

In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (“CEP”), CEP terminated Dr. Golden’s employment, and he subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.  The parties settled Dr. Golden’s claims, and CEP included a “no rehire” provision in the settlement agreement.  The provision states:

After nearly a decade of attempts, the Democratic Party is once again attacking non-compete agreements at the national level.  For several years, federal legislation has been proposed to limit the use of non-compete agreements in low-wage fields where Democrats say they have no valid use.  For example, in June 2015, former U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) and U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) proposed legislation that would ban the use of non-competes for low-wage earners (identified as individuals making less than $15 an hour, $31,200 per year or the minimum wage in the employee’s municipality) and require employers to notify all prospective employees that they may be asked to sign a non-compete agreement upon hiring.

Gone are the days when most workers stay at one job for their entire career. Losing key talent to a competitor is one of the biggest challenges many employers face. Hunton & Williams LLP partners Roland Juarez and Emily Burkhardt Vicente discuss strategies that companies across industries can employ to protect themselves from unlawful employee raiding.

View the 5-minute video here. 

Gone are the days when most workers stay at one job for their entire career. Losing key talent to a competitor is one of the biggest challenges many employers face. Hunton & Williams LLP partners Roland Juarez and Emily Burkhardt Vicente discuss strategies that companies across industries can employ to protect themselves from unlawful employee raiding.

View the 5-minute video here. 

In December 2014, the New York Attorney General’s Office initiated an investigation into Jimmy John’s corporate office and its New York franchises. Jimmy John’s is a sandwich shop with franchises throughout New York and the United States. The investigation in New York concerned whether the use of a non-compete clause that barred departing employees from taking a job with any employer within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches was legal.

The recently enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) provides a new form of expedited relief in federal court for owners of misappropriated trade secrets through an ex parte seizure of property. In “extraordinary circumstances,” DTSA permits a court to issue an order to authorize law enforcement officials to seize property – without advanced notice to the accused – in order to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret. The utilization of this ex parte seizure does not come without risk. Section 2(b)(2)(G) provides that in the case of wrongful or excessive seizure, a person who suffers damages has a cause of action against the applicant and can seek reasonable attorneys’ fees, damages for lost profits, cost of materials, loss of good will and punitive damages.

Yesterday, John Smith, the president of ABC Bank, announced to the board of directors that he intended to resign to go work for XYZ Bank, a local competitor. Smith also intends to take some of the bank’s most important customers, and several top officers with him to XYZ Bank. Upset and panicked, the chair of the board contacted the bank’s employment attorney to determine what could be done to stop the president from leaving and taking customers and employees with him. “Send me a copy of John’s employment agreement,” the lawyer said. “Employment agreement? The board did not ...

As we previously reported, the newly-enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) represents a significant new weapon for companies to prosecute trade secret violations. Among other features, the DTSA’s nationwide reach and its provision for judicial seizure, double damages, and attorneys’ fees provide a much more robust enforcement and remedy scheme than is currently available under many state laws.

Congress gave companies a new weapon to fight trade secret theft this week. President Obama signed a law that addresses several issues that often mire trade secret litigation – cross border battles when multiple states are involved, venue and choice of law disputes, and lack of ability to seize trade secrets before they escape a state or the United States. Companies now have a civil federal cause of action (original federal jurisdiction) for trade secret theft and the ability to seize trade secrets through an ex parte temporary injunction procedure that could prove to be incredibly costly for the unfortunate company whose newly hired employee stole trade secrets from a former employer. There will be more to come on these elements over the next few weeks.

In Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP, et al., Case No. S13A0012 (May 6, 2013), the Georgia Supreme Court limited the use and application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine by declining to recognize it as an independent cause of action. 

The inevitable disclosure doctrine allows an employer to restrict former employees from working for a competitor by demonstrating that the former employees will necessarily rely upon knowledge of the employer’s trade secrets in performing their new job duties. 

The growth of social media as a low-cost, widely-accessible form of communication has made it an ideal tool for businesses large and small to market themselves and reach out en mass to consumers in a manner more direct, personal, and in many ways effective than traditional media.  With Americans spending more time on-line than ever before, the value of such social media accounts can be considerable.  So when an employee who has used social media to develop his employer’s business and goodwill resigns, who owns the account, the contacts, and valuable consumer data that come with it?

Imagine the following scenario…  Twenty years ago, your Company was the employer at issue in a key Supreme Court of Virginia non-compete agreement case.  Your Company prevailed, with the Supreme Court holding that the Company’s standard non-compete agreement is enforceable under Virginia law.  Relying on that victory, your Company continues using identical non-compete language and believes that it is on firm footing in doing so; after all, the Supreme Court of Virginia - the final arbiter of the meaning of Virginia law - has ruled that your non-compete is enforceable.

CONTINUE ...

When asked on November 2, 2010, “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements,” Georgia voters overwhelmingly answered “Yes.”

By this vote, the Georgia voters approved the Restrictive Covenants Act, a law that will dramatically alter Georgia’s legal landscape regarding non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants.  The Act increases the enforceability of these agreements and allows courts to modify them to the extent reasonably necessary to enforce and protect legitimate business interests.  In order to become effective, Georgia residents had to amend the state Constitution -- an event that happened three days ago during Georgia’s general election.  Although there is a question regarding when the Act actually will become effective, by its own terms, it became effective on November 3, 2010.  Below is a summary of some of the key provisions of the new law.

Hunton & Williams partners Laura Franze and Roland Juarez recently participated in a panel of California employment law experts to discuss various cutting edge issues in labor and employment law, including the impact of social media, new trends in non-compete agreements and trade secret protections, the ripple effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, and other related topics.

Read the full article here.

In an effort to ride out the current economic storm, many businesses find themselves downsizing, conducting mass layoffs, and even declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy in an effort to survive.  These tough decisions inevitably lead to disgruntled former employees, whose ethics tend to take a backseat when it comes to “getting even” with their employers. 

In California, employers litigating claims for misappropriation of trade secrets must identify those trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” before pursuing discovery.  See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2010.210.  There is frequently an early litigation battle over what "reasonable particularity" means.  Earlier this month, a California Appellate Court recently analyzed this principle in Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court (Nexbio, Inc.).  The Court initially emphasized the trial court’s broad discretion under section 2019.210.  The Court also warned against the use of catch-all language in the identification statement to preserve the ability to add additional trade secrets to the list after the plaintiff has commenced discovery.

In Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 2009 WL 1028051 (Tex. April 17, 2009), the Texas Supreme Court held that the covenant not to compete at issue was enforceable because the agreement to furnish consideration (confidential information) for the covenant could be inferred due to the nature of the contract.  The Mann Frankfort Court held that a promise can be inferred when the employee was hired to perform work that necessarily required the receipt of confidential information.  Specifically, the Court stated:

We hold that if the nature of the employment for which the employee is hired will reasonably require the employer to provide confidential information to the employee for the employee to accomplish the contemplated job duties, then the employer impliedly promises to provide confidential information and the covenant is enforceable so long as the other requirements of the Covenant Not to Compete Act are satisfied.

Franchisors with operations in the State of Georgia are confronting a new challenge in their effort to enforce non-competition rights against franchisees.  In Atlanta Bread Co. v. Lupton-Smith (6/29/09), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that an “in-term” non-competition clause within a franchise agreement is held to the same strict scrutiny standard applicable to post-term and employment contract non-competition clauses.