Can a former employer’s alleged misconduct defeat a request for injunctive relief against former employees when those departing workers take confidential information and clients to another employer? A federal appeals court recently addressed this question and decided not to apply the “unclean hands” doctrine against the employer in a trade secrets case, clearing the way for the injunction.
The recent California Court of Appeal ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., creates some doubt about the continued viability of employee non-solicitation covenants. However, this case is distinguishable and appears limited to its facts, where the particular employee's profession was the business of recruiting temporary travel nurses and accordingly the court court found that the non-recruiting restriction was an unlawful restraint of trade or profession.
One month into Massachusetts’ new non-competition law, employers throughout the Commonwealth are learning what many predicted from the beginning—there are a lot more questions than answers. As Fisher Phillips previously reported, the new law adds several technical and substantive requirements that must be met in order to enforce a non-competition agreement. Today we spotlight a few issues employers must now grapple with.
A federal appeals court recently ruled that an overbroad “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement with a former employee can be an unlawful restraint of trade under California law.
It has now been over two years since the Defend Trade Secrets Act went into effect. How have courts been applying the controversial civil seizure remedy?
It finally happened. After years of debate on Beacon Hill, Massachusetts law makers agreed to reform the Commonwealth’s treatment of noncompetition agreements. Among other things, the bill precludes enforcement of noncompetition agreements against non-exempt employees, limits their length to just 12 months, and precludes the use of “continued employment” as acceptable consideration. If signed by the Governor, the bill will apply to agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018.
No Poach Agreements in the fast-food industry have garnered the attention of attorneys general in ten states and the District of Columbia. The development is the latest in a series of action at the state level giving restrictive covenants increased scrutiny. It adds to the enforcement efforts at the federal level by the U.S Department of Justice that has brought enforcement actions against several large U.S. companies and has a number of ongoing investigations
In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois touched on two key areas of employment law. The decision highlights the importance of sufficiently tailoring non-solicitation agreements, and implementing adequate measures to ensure trade secrets are maintained as confidential at all times
In a trade secrets matter, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole of the Northern District of Illinois rejected Motorola’s attempt to compel the imaging of the computers of a number of Hytera employees. The decision is especially interesting with respect to the intersection between computer forensics and proportionality.
In the final installment of our three-part series, we highlight restrictive covenant reform legislation that is currently pending before the state legislatures.