All Categories

The Questionable Non-Compete: How to Hire Someone but Avoid a Tortious Interference Claim

The Scenario: Your company has a great applicant for a job opening, Jane, but you learn during the interview process that Jane signed a non-compete agreement with her current employer. You can quickly spot some reasons why the non-compete is unenforceable. You acknowledge there is some risk in hiring Jane, though, including that her current employer may sue Jane for breaching the contract and your company for interfering with her contract—a tortious interference claim. So, now what? Setting aside Jane and her own legal risks, what specific steps should you take to set up your best defense to a claim that your company interfered with Jane’s contract? More >

MN Supreme Court Redefines “Good Faith” Under MN Whistleblowers Act

On August 9, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court redefined what “good faith” means under the 2013 amendment of the Minnesota Whistleblowers Act (MWA). In Friedlander v. Edwards Life Sciences, LLC, the Court concluded that its prior interpretations of "good faith" gave the phrase a meaning different from the definition provided in the 2013 amendment and, as a result, those prior decisions are abrogated. The Court reasoned that any other conclusion would render the "good faith" definition section of the 2013 amendment superfluous. More >

Washington’s Whiplash: Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Title VII

In the last six months, the scope of federal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and gender identity) has been a hot topic in the courts and Trump administration. During the Obama administration, federal agencies and the Department of Justice argued in favor of such protection. The Trump administration is taking the opposite approach, and yesterday the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit explicitly arguing that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. The courts are divided. In the spring of 2017, the Seventh Circuit ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII, while the Eleventh Circuit rejected that view. The Second Circuit is weighing the issue, and in the meantime, what's an employer to do? More >

A Playbook for Employers to Avoid California’s Labor Code Section 925 Provisions

In September 2016, the State of California enacted Labor Code Section 925, which received lots of buzz at the time for its potential to crumble employers’ ability to legally enforce non-compete agreements and other employment contracts involving individuals living and working primarily in California. Many non-California employers who employed individuals in the state feared that […] More >

Oregon Bill Mandating Predictable Schedules Expected to be Signed into Law

Oregon lawmakers approved the nation’s first statewide measure requiring predictive scheduling for employees. Assuming Gov. Kate Brown signs as expected, the bill takes effect July 1, 2018, and requires large employers in the retail, hospitality, and food service industries to provide workers with seven days of advance notice of their designated work shifts. By 2021, […] More >

How Employers Can Avoid California Labor Code Section 925

Many non-California employers view the enactment of California Labor Code Section 925 as destroying any possibility of avoiding the state’s restrictive covenants laws for California-based employees. But there is hope! With creative legal counsel, employers can draft agreements that do not implicate the statute and avoid its application in litigation. More >