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
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- 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
- Maternity Leave
- 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
- 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 Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- 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
- 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
- Play or Pay
- Private employers
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Crisis Management
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Telecommuting
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
New NLRB Memo Says Non-Compete Agreements Violate NLRA
Following the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) January proposal to ban non-compete agreements, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a memo stating that non-compete agreements, except in very specific circumstances, violate the National Labor Relations Act. Any employer who uses non-compete agreements, or other agreements that functionally serve as non-competes, should be bracing for impact.
The memo, issued by NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, states the Board’s claim that non-compete agreements are “overbroad” and violate the NLRA by discouraging employees from exercising their Section 7 rights under the law. This includes, Abruzzo writes, “chilling” employees from:
- “concertedly threatening to resign to demand better working conditions.”
- “carrying out concerted threats to resign or otherwise concertedly resigning to secure improved working conditions.”
- “concertedly seeking or accepting employment with a local competitor to obtain better working conditions.”
- “soliciting their co-workers to go work for a local competitor as part of a broader course of protected concerted activity.”
- “seeking employment, at least in part, to specifically engage in protected activity with other workers at an employer’s workplace.”
This justification aligns with the standard Abruzzo has applied to other NLRB matters in her tenure, which is that employer practices that would “reasonably tend to chill” the exercise of Section 7 rights in employees, i.e. anything that might be interpreted as restricting protected activities, violates the NLRA. The memo further explains that non-competes specifically restrict these activities because the agreements “[cut] off [employees’] access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for based on their experience, aptitudes, and preferences as to type and location of work.” The General Counsel also signaled that no-solicitation clauses are similarly “overbroad” such that, in the eyes of the NLRB, they also restrict Section 7 rights.
The General Counsel instructed the NLRB Regional offices to “seek make-whole relief for employees who, because of their employer’s unlawful maintenance of an overbroad non-compete provision, can demonstrate that they lost opportunities for other employment, even absent additional conduct by the employer to enforce the provision.”
What does this mean for employers? It is clear from both the FTC’s proposed rule to ban non-competes and this NLRB memo that such agreements are on the chopping block in 2023. Given this trend, it is important that employers utilizing non-competes with their non-supervisory personnel begin to review the agreements and any other restrictive covenants they have in place and consider whether any of them may need to be rescinded to maintain compliance.
To begin your compliance review, and to make sense of the ever-changing world of employment law, contact McBrayer today.
Claire M. Vujanovic, member with McBrayer, is located in the firm's Louisville office. Ms. Vujanovic's practice is concentrated in the areas of labor and employment law and includes NLRA compliance, drafting and reviewing employment manuals and policies, drafting severance, non-compete and employment agreements, and counseling clients related to overtime and wage and hour regulations, laws and claims and workplace discrimination. Ms. Vujanovic can be reached at cvujanovic@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2322.
Services may be performed by others. This article does not constitute legal advice.

