Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Northwestern
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Employer Mandate
- FICA
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Severance Pay
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Crisis Management
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
FTC Moves to Ban Non-Competes
On January 5th, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission released a proposal for a new rule that would ban almost all forms of non-compete agreements—and employers should be warned. The rule, as proposed, would cause major administrative headaches for employers—as well as eliminating a key tool for protecting trade secrets, client bases, and more.
The proposed rule applies to non-compete agreements between “employers” and “workers,” with each of those terms being defined broadly. An employer is defined as “any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, including any person acting under color or authority of state law, that hires or contracts with a worker to work,” while a worker can be “any natural person who works, whether paid or unpaid, for an employer”—including independent contractors, gig workers, interns, and even unpaid volunteers, not just employees. The limited cases in which the ban would not apply are in franchisor-franchisee relationships and in business sales in which a person owns 25% or more of the business. Otherwise, the rule is applicable across the board in every industry, affecting agreements with all workers, from part-time hourly workers to the C-suite.
The rule, as proposed, would make it illegal for employers to 1) enter or attempt to enter a non-compete agreement with a worker, 2) continue to maintain such an agreement that existed before the ban, and 3) represent to a worker that they are subject to such an agreement when they are not. On top of these disallowed actions for employers, the rule would require employers to take action both to rescind existing non-compete agreements in the first 180 days following the publication of a final rule and to actively inform the subjects of those voided agreements that they are no longer in effect—which includes tracking down workers who have already left the employer. These prohibitions and requirements would mean a great deal of extra work for employers, all of which would need to be completed in a tight time frame.
Additionally, even if a non-compete agreement is not in place, agreements such as non-solicitation, non-disclosure, and confidentiality agreements may be held in violation of the rule if they are found to be de facto non-compete clauses under the rule’s “functional test.”
The public is invited to comment on the rule proposal until the comment period ends on March 10, 2023. Following this period, the FTC will review comments and release a final rule, which may be enforced 180 days after publication, pending legal action.
If you have questions or concerns about how a non-compete ban may affect your business, contact McBrayer today.
Kevin Chlarson is a Member of McBrayer in the firm’s Louisville office, practicing in the firm’s commercial litigation and alcoholic beverage litigation groups. He concentrates primarily on shareholder and partnership disputes, breach of contract claims, and breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Chlarson can be reached via email at kchlarson@mcbrayerfirm.com and by phone at 502-327-5400.