Posts

March Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Rule on DACA Program
  2. Reminder: 2017 EEO-1 Filing Deadline March 31, 2018
  3. H1-B Visa: Filing Deadlines and New Requirements
  4. Federal Judge Blocks EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Background Checks
  5. Reminder: Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Effective April 1, 2018
  6. Wisconsin’s Non-Compete Rules Apply to Non-Solicitation Agreements

Read more

Minnesota: Non-Compete Agreements Require Additional Consideration Other than Continued Employment

APPLIES TO

All Employers of MN Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 6, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On October 6, 2017, a Minnesota federal district court emphasized the importance of appropriately presenting restrictive covenants.  Minnesota employers who require employees to sign restrictive covenants, such as a non-compete agreement, have certain obligations to the timing and type of consideration that must be offered with the restrictive covenant.  Specifically, new applicants must be provided the non-compete agreement before accepting the offer of employment, and currently-employed individuals must be provided something of value beyond continued employment as consideration.

Florida: Employees May Be Prohibited from Using Employer Referral Sources After Termination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with FL Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 14, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Florida, non-compete agreements are used to protect an employer’s “legitimate business interests.” The Florida Supreme Court recently stated that referral sources may be considered a legitimate business interest. In both White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida and Americare Home Therapy, Inc. v. Hiles, the employers hired an individual whose job duties included soliciting health care providers for home health care service referrals.  The employees were required to sign a non-compete agreement that restricted their ability to work for competitors for a year after termination; in both instances, the employers sued when their respective ex-employee went to work for a competitor after their termination.

The Florida Supreme Court identified the crux of both cases as determining whether or not the home health care service referrals qualified as a legitimate business interest.  Ultimately, the court stated that the statute did not specifically preclude a referral source from being recognized as a legitimate business interest.  However, the court cautioned that employers should not consider these cases as a ticket to consider all referral sources as a legitimate business interest.  Instead, courts must analyze the facts of any similar case to determine how critical the referral source is to the business, the nature of the business, and the scope of business’s investment in developing referral relationships.

Action Items

  1. Review restrictive covenants or non-compete agreements with labor counsel to ensure agreements cover all legitimate business interests.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.

Nevada: Rules for Restrictive Non-Compete Agreements Change Again

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NV Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 3, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Previously, the Nevada Supreme Court declared that overly broad non-compete agreements will be wholly unenforceable, meaning agreements containing overly restrictive provisions beyond what is needed to protect an employer’s interest will be void in total.  The Supreme Court stated that “blue penciling,” or modify parts of an agreement to make it enforceable, would not be allowed.