13 May 2024
See how JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group® can help you.
In the article below, Partner Michael H. Strub, Jr., analyzes the complexities surrounding non-compete agreements and the FTC’s recent decision to ban them. With the enforceability of the FTC’s rule facing legal scrutiny, he discusses the likelihood of a cohesive federal approach and its implications for employers nationwide.
Navigating Non-Competes
by
Michael H. Strub, Jr., JMBM’s Litigation Group
The Federal Trade Commission’s rule that would ban non-competition faced legal challenges from the day it was issued. What are the obstacles the rule faces, and what is the likelihood that some form of federal rule will be created?
Before analyzing these questions, it should be noted that state laws on the enforceability of non-competes are, literally, all over the map. In his article, Fifty Ways to Leave Your Employer: Relative Enforcement of Covenants Not to Compete, 13 U. Pa. J. Bus. L., 751, 786 (2011), Norman Bishara ranked the states from 1 to 50 based on their willingness to enforce non-competes and had a separate ranking for each one. Based on his analysis, Florida is the state that has been the friendliest for enforcement, while California is the most hostile.
As Robert McAvoy notes in his article, How Can Federal Actors Compete on Noncompetes?, 126 Dick. L. Rev. 651 (2022), this panoply of laws is complicated by the employer’s efforts to use choice of law provisions to select the law of a friendly state even if the employee is employed in a state where non-competition clauses are invalid. In Stone Surgical, LLC v. Stryker Corp., 858 F.3d 383, 391 (6th Cir. 2017), for example, the court enforced a non-competition clause under Michigan law against a terminated employee even though the employee worked exclusively in Louisiana, whose law would have prohibited the agreement. CONTINUE READING →