Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- COVID-19
- Temporary Leave
- IRS
- Treasury
- Paid Sick Leave
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Salary Theshold
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Overtime Pay
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Young v. UPS
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- EEOC
- Intellectual Property
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal contractors
- Security Checks
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Lane v. Franks
- Cloud
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Whistleblower
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Private employers
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- At-will employment
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- SHRM
- United States v. Windsor
- Defamation
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Reference checks
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- posting requirements
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Telecommuting
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- 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
Showing 7 posts in Non-Compete Agreement.
Kentucky Supreme Court Decision Drastically Impacts All Non-Compete Agreements
Earlier this year, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and held, in a landmark decision, that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-compete agreement. This reverses prior precedent that employer-employee agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this article focuses on the consideration requirement only, as the Kentucky Supreme Court chose not to address any other issues. More >
Getting “Sandwiched” Into a Non-Compete Agreement
The Huffington Post recently reported that Jimmy John’s, the national sandwich chain, requires its workers to sign strict non-compete agreements. The agreement was disclosed as part of a lawsuit by employees, and many in the employment industry are wondering if such an agreement is really necessary for the company’s minimum wage workers. These agreements are usually saved for high-level executives or those subject to proprietary information – not the guy behind the counter making a sub. More >
An Important New Decision Affects Non-Compete Agreements in Kentucky
The Kentucky Supreme Court recently reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and declared that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-competition agreement. In the course of reaching its decision, the Court clarified prior case law dealing with the issue of whether non-competition agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this post focuses on the consideration requirement only. More >
Complete Your Non-Compete: Helpful Drafting Tips, cont.
Earlier this week, I discussed the importance of tailoring non-compete agreements to ensure enforceability and provided some factors to consider when drafting. Below are four more factors that should help you create a strong non-compete agreement. More >
Complete Your Non-Compete: Helpful Drafting Tips
Perhaps you consider your non-compete agreement just one form in a stack of many? When it is time to use it there is not much to the process: you retrieve it from the HR office, briefly discuss it with the employee, and he willingly signs it. But such a practice is a perilous one because non-compete agreements are not meant to be “one-size-fits-all.” Rather, they should be thoughtfully tweaked to each specific employee and situation. By relying on boilerplate language and fill-in-the-blank forms, you are risking the chance that a court will find your agreement unenforceable. More >
So you have non-compete agreements in place. Are they still enforceable?
You’ve assessed your company’s needs and have figured out that you have key personnel who should have non-compete agreements. You’ve had your lawyers draw up reasonable agreements, you’ve offered consideration in the form of new employment or a promotion, and your employees signed. All is well, right? More >
Who Breached First? Protecting the enforceability of an employer’s no-compete agreement in Kentucky.
Many employers are aware of the substantial benefits a no-compete agreement can provide. No-compete agreements (also referred to as covenants not to compete) offer effective protection for an employer’s legitimate business interests, including but not limited to preventing former employees from taking away clients or customers[i] and protecting against the use and dissemination of an employer’s confidential and/or proprietary information.[ii] Indeed, even Kentucky courts acknowledge that no-compete agreements serve as a “valuable business tool” for employers. [iii] More >
