In an important decision on August 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AMN, finding that the non-solicitation provision in the parties’ agreement was not an unreasonable restraint in violation of the federal antitrust law known as the “Sherman Act.”  Instead, the Court ruled that the non-solicitation provision was “reasonably necessary to the parties’ pro-competitive collaboration” and that Aya failed to show the non-solicitation provision had a “substantial anticompetitive effect.”[1]

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Denies Sherman Act Challenge To No-Poach Provision

On August 13, 2021, Governor Pritzker signed into law a bill amending the Illinois Freedom to Work Act governing restrictive covenants and non-competition agreements.  On May 30, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill codifying existing noncompete law in some respects and modifying it in others.  We detailed the Bill in a prior blog here.  The Bill is now the law.  The amendments become effective on January 1, 2022 and will not apply retroactively.

Continue Reading Illinois Governor Signs Non-Compete Legislation

On July 9, 2021 President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which urges the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to curb the use of non-compete and no-poach agreements.  The Executive Order aims  to foster a “fair, open, and competitive marketplace,” and calls for a “whole-of-government” approach to reverse trends of industry consolidation and anticompetitive practices. The Order indicates these trends have harmed employees’ wages, work conditions, and mobility.  It further targets what it characterizes as the “overuse” of non-compete agreements and other barriers to entry in certain markets.

Continue Reading President’s Executive Order Aims to Foster a Competitive Marketplace

Following a nationwide trend, Illinois has proposed significant legislation affecting employee restrictive covenants, such as non-compete agreements.  While the proposed law does not dramatically change most aspects of the patchwork of Illinois common law, it adds certainty to long-questioned areas and imposes several threshold hurdles and eligibility factors to the test for assessing enforceable restrictive covenants.

Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About New Non-Compete Legislation in Illinois

The Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) continues to investigate hiring practices in a number of industries for potential antitrust violations as part of its effort to scrutinize, and in some instances, criminally prosecute, companies and individuals who enter into agreements with their competitors regarding hiring, wages, and solicitation of employees.
Continue Reading Taboola the Latest Target of DOJ’s Aggressive Antitrust Scrutiny of Hiring Practices

California Labor Code Section 925 prohibits employers from requiring employees who reside and work primarily in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to any provision that would require the employee to litigate outside California any claim arising in California, or that would deprive the employee of the benefit of California law with respect to any claim arising in California.  Under Section 925, any such provision is voidable by the employee and if the employee exercises her right to void the provision, then any such claim shall be adjudicated in California under California law.[1]
Continue Reading California Labor Code Section 925 and How Employers Can Avoid It

On January 11, 2021, the mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, signed the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (the “Act”), which is set to be one of the broadest and most expansive bans on non-competes in the country.  The Act bans provisions in employment agreements that forbid any employee from working for a competitor not only after their employment, but also during their employment.  While the Act does not apply retroactively, any non-compete entered into after the Act’s effective date is void and unenforceable.

The Act was submitted for the requisite 30-day congressional review period and is expected to become law in the coming months.
Continue Reading Employment Agreements: DC’s Recent Ban on Non-Competes is One of the Broadest in the Country

Trade secrets and other proprietary information can be among a business’ most valuable assets and drive its competitive advantage.  It is therefore ordinarily critical that employees be bound by an enforceable agreement that prohibits them from misusing or otherwise harming the value of the employer’s confidential information.  The recent California Court of Appeal decision, Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 303, should be of concern to employers because it holds that an employee confidentiality agreement may be voided as a de facto unlawful non-compete agreement if it has the effect of preventing the employee from working in the industry.   
Continue Reading California Court Strikes Down Overbroad Confidentiality Agreement as a de facto Non-Compete

Employment agreements with restrictive covenants typically contain both a forum selection clause, which determines the forum where a dispute must be heard, and a choice of law clause, which determines the law that applies to the dispute. As lawyers who regularly litigate post-employment restrictive covenant cases well know, enforcement or restrictive covenants often turns on which court decides the dispute, and what law applies, which is why these provisions are so important.  Often, however, employers consider these provisions as mere drafting afterthoughts.  They shouldn’t be, given the outsized importance they can play in determining enforcement.  Moreover, at the dispute stage – whether seeking to enforce or resist a restrictive covenant – forum selection and choice of law provisions should inform, and often drive, litigation strategy.
Continue Reading Don’t Neglect Forum Selection and Choice of Law Provisions When Drafting or Litigating Restrictive Covenants

Business-to-business contracts often concern trade secrets. Contracts such as NDAs, joint development agreements, license agreements, vendor agreements, and other commercial agreements commonly contain restrictive covenants relating to the protection of trade secrets or other protectible interests. But when do these terms constitute an illicit restraint of trade under California law? The California Supreme Court just addressed this very question in Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen , holding that most B2B agreements are governed by the common law rule of reason, instead of the flat prohibition on noncompetes applicable to the employment context.
Continue Reading Ixchel v. Biogen: California B2B Noncompetes Do Not Per Se Violate B&P Section 16600, and Are Instead Subject to Rule of Reason

Non-compete, proprietary information, and confidentiality agreements often contain forum selection provisions, which specify where any related litigation must be brought.  But what is to happen when the underlying agreements contain different forum selection provisions?  A United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently addressed this very issue, and held that in such cases, a court must decide for itself which proposed forum has the greater connection to the underlying dispute by focusing on just the facts.  See High Tech Nat’l, LLC v. Wiener, No. 119-CV-02489-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Nov. 26, 2019).
Continue Reading Trade Secrets and Conflicting Forum Selection Provisions – Focus on the Facts!