Non-Compete Agreements May Be In Jeopardy

May 21, 2024

Challenging the Rule

By Trevor Brice, Esq.

On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees. While this action by the FTC was expected, there were many unanswered questions about the final impact of the non-compete rule in regard to existing non-compete agreements and its scope as applied to future non-compete agreements. These questions were answered under the final rule as promulgated.

 

Most Non-competition Agreements Banned


The FTC’s final rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register. As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, with close to no exceptions, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller.


Independent contractors are also included under the umbrella of employees that would no longer be subject to non-competition agreements under the final rule. This would effectively mean that many employees in industries such as film, finance, and other professional services now have the right to switch between employers, which the FTC states “will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to the market.”


However, and of note, the FTC does not have jurisdiction over nonprofit employers, so non-competition agreements are enforceable in this regard despite the FTC’s final rule.

 

Final Rule Retroactive as to Lower-wage Workers


In addition to prohibiting all non-competition agreements after the effective date of the final rule with limited exceptions, the FTC’s rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the rule as well.


Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the rule as employees in ‘policy-making positions’ making at least $151,164 per year. Existing non-competition agreements with employees who do not meet this definition are no longer enforceable per the final rule.


Despite the final rule, employers do not need to modify existing non-competition agreements by rescinding them. Employers do, however, need to notify their workers that the employer will not enforce non-competition agreements in the future. The FTC has included in its final rule model language for informing employees of this change, which can be communicated through email, text, or in paper format.


The final rule does not generally impact non-disclosure agreements or non-solicitation agreements unless they prohibit a worker from seeking or accepting work or operating a business. Employers should be aware that more restrictive state laws governing non-competition agreements remain in effect.

 

Challenges to Final Rule Looming


As of the announcement of the FTC’s final rule, challenges are already looming. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already vowed to block the rule, calling it “an unlawful power grab” and arguing that the authority to govern non-competition agreements should be left to the states.


The statement issued by the Chamber of Commerce goes on to note that, “since its inception over 100 years ago, the FTC has never been granted the constitutional and statutory authority to write its own competition rules. Non-compete agreements are either upheld or dismissed under well-established state laws governing their use.”


This announcement by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will undoubtedly lead to other challenges through the court system. Indeed, a Dallas-based global tax-services and software provider has already filed suit against the Federal Trade Commission over the impact of the final rule.


The FTC, as the Chamber of Commerce rightly points out, has no authority to write its own competition rules. The FTC can, however, make rules if it goes through the proper rule-making process, including introducing proposed legislation and leaving it open to comment for a certain amount of time, which did occur here.


However, even following this process does not ensure that the rule will stand. The rule still remains open to court challenges from the Chamber of Commerce, individuals, or organizations affected by the rule or any other stakeholders within the final rule. This could mean that changes would be on the horizon for the rule, and possibly a narrowing of its already expansive application.


Takeaways


As noted, the FTC’s final rule is already being challenged through the court system, and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet.


Further, if employers are intending to enter into non-competition agreements that are reasonable and enforceable under existing state laws, other options, such as non-disclosure agreements and non-solicitation agreements, may have to be used, but it would be prudent to wait on further ruling from the existing challenges to the final rule.


In the meantime, consultation with an attorney will aid in navigating the changing landscape of non-competition agreements.


This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click the link here.

When Bias Creeps into Independent Investigations It All Becomes Tainted.

April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.