A recent medical device case shows that an employer could lose the benefit of a forum-selection clause by failing to sue its former employee along with the new employer at the outset of the case. Unfortunately, in this case, the decision not to do so had dire consequences for the employer.
Forum-selection clauses can have a drastic impact on the outcome of non-compete litigation where there can be significant differences between states, and the Alabama Supreme Court just weighed in.
As a management-side labor and employment law firm with a national practice, we often deal with companies who have operations in multiple states throughout the country. These same companies are often frustrated in their desire for consistent management and human resources practices because of the differing laws in the states in which they do business. Nowhere have these companies felt this frustration more than in regard to the multi-varied state laws regarding the enforcement of non-competes. Companies that want a single standard for non-competes for all of their employees often find themselves unable to implement such consistent standards without running afoul of an individual state’s limitations on the enforcement of such non-competes.
According to a recent Gallup poll, thirty-seven percent (37%) of U.S. workers report that they telecommute or otherwise work remotely. Indeed, due to advances in technology, many employees never report to an office of their employer, but instead use technology to conduct business on behalf of their employer from a remote location. Remote employment, however, raises challenges that the law is just now beginning to resolve. One such challenge is ...
Sometimes the most useful law in a non-compete case can come from court decisions that have nothing to do with non-competes. Read on for more about adhesion contracts and forum selection clauses.
February 2013 was an active month in the world of non-competes and trade secrets, and if we read the tea leaves, it looks like things are only going to get busier.