Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Temporary Leave
- IRS
- Treasury
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Paid Sick Leave
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- 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
- 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
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal contractors
- 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
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "Ban-the-box"
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Violence
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Companionship services
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Payroll
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Wage garnishment
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- 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 Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- severance pay
- 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.
- 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
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Salary Threshold
- 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 >
