Contact Us
Categories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Law
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Volunteer
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- Crystalline Silica
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- Motivating Factor
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- 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
- Social Media Ownership
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Crisis Management
- Federal Department of Labor
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Communications Decency Act
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Contracts
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
It's Official: FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes
In a stunning move the same day the Department of Labor issued a rule raising the overtime salary threshold, the Federal Trade Commission issued its own long-gestating rule banning noncompete clauses nationwide. Employers should begin reviewing their contracts immediately to understand how this sweeping change will affect their workforce.
The Basics
The Final Rule, issued Tuesday, April 23, 2024, has been in the works for an unusually long time. The rule as proposed appeared way back in early January of 2023, with the comment period ending over a year before publication of the Final Rule. At this point, employers have been on notice of the impending change for well more than a year, so it’s likely that plans are in place to adapt. If not, however, there’s no time like the present.
The Final Rule in its most basic form is fairly simple and unambiguous – as of the effective date of the new rule, all new non-competes with workers will be banned, all existing non-competes with workers other than “Senior Executives” will be unenforceable, and only existing non-competes with “Senior Executives” will remain valid. This will become effective in 120 days following publication in the Federal Register, so mere weeks remain for developing workarounds and alternatives in employment contracts for protection of trade secrets, client bases, and more.
The Details
As with any rule, however, the devil may be in the details – the rule is written expressly to apply only in the context of an employment contract; non-competes built into the sale of businesses, for example, will remain unaffected, so this is not a blanket ban on all non-competes in all contracts. The rule as published, however, contains hundreds of pages of language provided to help discern applicability. It evinces a concern on the part of the FTC that other contract clauses may be de facto non-competes by being overly coercive. Specifically discussed were overly-broad non-disclosure agreements, non-solicitation agreements or training repayment agreements that would serve as a non-compete clause by another means and would run afoul of the Final Rule.
For example, if an employee were to receive tuition reimbursement from the company, a provision requiring that it be repaid to the company if the employee leaves within a certain period is, in and of itself, not in violation of the rule. If that provision required the employee to repay the company $10,000 when the tuition was only $2000, however, it would probably violate the Final Rule. If a term prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent an employee from either seeking or accepting work elsewhere or operating a business, it will violate the Final Rule.
The Final Rule doesn’t apply where a cause of action over a non-compete clause accrued prior to the effective date of the rule, and it won’t serve to show as an unfair method of competition if someone attempts to enforce a non-compete clause if the person has a good-faith reason to believe the Final Rule doesn’t apply.
In addition to exceptions for the sale of a business, the Final Rule leaves in place existing non-competes for “senior executives.” A senior executive for purposes of the Final Rule is someone who made at least $151,164 the preceding year and is in a policy-making position, which is the “final authority to make policy decisions that control significant aspects of a business entity or common enterprise.” It does not apply, though, to those whose role involves merely advising or influencing those decisions.
Notice
The administrative burden on employers will take the form of the notice that must be provided to those under such agreements. Employers are required to give applicable workers notice that “must be on paper” and delivered by hand, mail, email or text message. The rule provides model language for this notice.
What now?
The Final Rule becomes effective 120 days after publication, but there are still a few more layers of review AND lawsuits already filed to block the Final Rule from taking effect, so there’s a chance the rule may be paused or even blocked. Still, now is the time to begin the review of all employment contracts for any clauses that may violate the Final Rule should it take effect. Contact your McBrayer attorney today for more information or for assistance with this process.
Cynthia L. Effinger, Member with McBrayer, is located in the firm’s Louisville office. Ms. Effinger’s practice is concentrated in the areas of employment law and commercial litigation. Her employment law practice is focused on drafting employment manuals and policies, social media, wage and hour, non-compete agreements and workplace discrimination. Ms. Effinger can be reached at ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2316
Claire M. Vujanovic, Member with McBrayer, is located in the firm's Louisville office. Ms. Vujanovic's practice is concentrated in the areas of labor and employment law and includes NLRA compliance, drafting and reviewing employment manuals and policies, drafting severance, non-compete and employment agreements, and counseling clients related to overtime and wage and hour regulations, laws and claims and workplace discrimination. Ms. Vujanovic can be reached at cvujanovic@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2322.
This article does not constitute legal advice.