• Posts by Jeffrey M. Glass
    Partner

    Jeff is an advocate for businesses and employers throughout the Midwest. A significant portion of Jeff’s practice is devoted to litigating restrictive covenant, unfair competition and trade secret cases, including ...

As reported in prior blogs, the Illinois legislature for several months has been considering amendments to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act that apply to non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions. SmithAmundsen attorneys worked closely with the Illinois Chamber of Commerce to protect the interests of employers as much as possible during the legislative process. 

The legislature has now passed SB672. It is generally viewed as a compromise between employer and employee interest groups. It is not a ban on restrictive covenants, but it does impose important limits on them.

Effective May 25, 2021, the State of Nevada enacted amendments to the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act that address non-compete agreements. Prior to the new amendments, Nevada law provided that a non-competition covenant is deemed void and unenforceable unless: it is supported by valuable consideration, it does not impose any restraint that is greater than required for the protection of the employer, it does not impose any undue hardship on the employee, and it imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the non-competition ...

Over the past several years, the State of Oregon has enacted significant statutory limits on non-compete agreements. Under ORS 653.295, as in effect until recently, a non-compete was “voidable and [could] not be enforced by a court of this state” unless:

  • The employer advised the employee in a written employment offer at least two weeks before the first day of employment that a non-competition agreement is required, or the non-competition agreement is executed upon the employee’s bona fide advancement;
  • The employee is exempt from Oregon minimum wage and overtime law;
  • The ...

Historically, a majority of states have allowed employers to use restrictive covenants with physicians—and only a handful of states (among them: Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode island) have prohibited that practice in whole or in part. However, as discussed in recent blogs, the current trend is for state legislatures to pass new laws that regulate and limit non-compete agreements, often as they relate to lower wage employees or employees below certain income thresholds.

Now, in what may be a harbinger of future legislative efforts to regulate restrictive covenants in the ...

In the typical non-compete lawsuit, an employer seeks to block the defendant, often an ex-sales representative, from calling on or doing business with the company’s clients. However, in some cases, the defendant succeeds in taking some business, thereby raising the issue of monetary damages.  So, how are damages calculated in a non-compete case? 

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed this issue. In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Hill, the defendant insurance salesman admitted that he improperly did business with a certain ...

In recent years, many states have enacted legislation directed at employment contracts containing non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Illinois first did so in 2016 with the Freedom to Work Act (the Act), which bans certain Illinois employers from entering into non-compete agreements with low-wage employees.

Now, the Illinois General Assembly has taken the matter up again with additional proposed amendments to the Act.

Although the new legislation has not been finalized, some provisions that appear likely to be included in the final version are: income thresholds for ...

A currently pending federal case reminds us that hospitality employers could have claims for sexual harassment and discrimination brought against them based on the alleged inappropriate conduct of their customers. 

The case is Hashway v. Starbucks Corp. (D.R.I., No. 1:19-cv-00125), filed on March 11, 2019. The plaintiff is a former female Starbucks barista. The case arose from the alleged inappropriate conduct of a male customer. The claim was that the customer allegedly would routinely come to the store and stare at the employee, make lewd and inappropriate comments about ...

Early in the New Year we often see employees switching jobs, which can trigger disputes over restrictive covenants in their employment agreements. As 2018 draws to a close, here are some things to keep in mind to protect your company, its customers, and its information against unfair competition from departing employees:

Assume the worst. We tend to assume people will comply with their contractual obligations. Employers should not assume a departing employee will comply with a restrictive covenant. Some employees forget they even have an employment agreement. Some think the ...

Recently the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against a well-known restaurant franchise seeking to enjoin it from enforcing non-compete provisions in employment agreements that it had required all employees to sign, including hourly employees such as delivery drivers. The clauses at issue prohibited employees from working at any other similar business within two miles of any of the franchisor or its franchisees’ stores in the United States. Even though the franchisor agreed to voluntarily drop these clauses moving forward, the Illinois legislature took action and ...

As we reported on May 13, 2016, there is now a federal statute, called the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) that provides a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The full DTSA is found here.

One important feature of the DTSA is that it, like most state trade secret statutes, allows employers to recover punitive damages and attorney’s fees for the unauthorized use or disclosure of trade secrets. However, unlike the state statutes, the DTSA conditions the availability of these remedies on compliance with certain notice requirements contained in Section 7 of ...

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).  DTSA provides a new federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. A “trade secret” is a broad category of intellectual property. Essentially, it includes any business information that is confidential and derives value from not being known to competitors. It can include everything from technology, to business strategies, to proprietary information about customers and prospects. Unlike patents, copyrights or trademarks, there is no registration system for trade secrets ...

Readers of this blog know there is an intense debate in the courts over the application of Fifield v. Premier Dealer Servs., Inc., 993 N.E.2d 938, 943 (Ill.App 1st Dist. 2013). Fifield announced that restrictive covenants supported solely by an at-will employment relationship were invalid for lack of adequate consideration if the employee did not remain employed for two years after signing the contract. This applies even if the employee voluntarily terminated. The Illinois Supreme Court did not accept review of Fifield, so it is controlling law in Illinois. However, it has ...

Readers of this update know that Illinois radically changed restrictive covenant law in Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services Inc., 2013 IL App. (1st) 120327.  In Fifield, the court required two years of at-will employment as consideration for a post-employment non-solicitation or non-compete clause entered into at the outset of employment, even if the employee voluntarily quit. The Illinois Supreme Court declined to review Fifield despite the requests of business groups and employer advocates. Since then, Fifield has remained controversial, with one appellate ...

At the beginning of the year it is not uncommon for employees to jump ship.  We often find our employer clients either dealing with employees who have left, or considering hiring employees who may be under non-compete agreements with their former employers.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

If you are an employer who has an employee leave, make sure that his or her work station, laptop, or other electronic storage device is not “wiped” or put back in service until you are comfortable that the employee is not taking information or engaged in conduct that violates his or her ...

More employers are encountering issues with transgender employees and job applicants.  The term “transgender” has various meanings, ranging from people who have undergone a sex change operation, are considering or preparing for such an operation, or are merely dressed like the opposite sex.

There are indications that “gender identity” could become a category of work place discrimination.  The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill providing protection against work place discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, although the bill is considered ...

Welcome to the Labor and Employment Law Update where attorneys from Amundsen Davis blog about management side labor and employment issues. 

RSS RSS Feed

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Contributors

Archives

Jump to Page

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. If you choose to continue browsing this website, you consent to the use of cookies. Click here to read about our privacy and cookie policy.