Class Action | Eleventh Circuit Reinstates No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King
As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state’s broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements. The law took effect on January 1, 2024, and expressly codifies Edwards v. Arthur...more
In June of 2022, McDonald’s obtained a judgment on the pleadings, ending antitrust litigation challenging the legality of the no-hire restraints it previously included in its franchise agreements. More than a year later, the...more
Many employers require employees to sign restrictive covenants prohibiting them from engaging in certain activities after their employment ends. These prohibitions frequently include - opening or working for a competing...more
In Louisiana, restrictive covenants—known locally as “no competes”—are unenforceable by statutory default. The applicable statute declares, “Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained...more
Partner Jay Bogan recently discussed the Eleventh Circuit Reinstating No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King....more
A federal appellate court held that Burger King and its franchisees may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act (antitrust) by engaging in concerted action when entering into “no-hire” agreements. The appellate court reversed...more
Over the last several years, business-to-business “no-hire” and “no-poach” agreements have come under legal attack, including through enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission and criminal prosecutions by the...more
Takeaway: Restrictive covenants have generated a lot of controversy lately, especially with the Department of Justice’s continued focus on illegal no-poach hiring agreements between Silicon Valley companies and other firms. ...more
As previously addressed on this blog, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont recently signed into law the state’s fiscal year 2023 budget (HB5506) (Act). Among other things, the Act prohibits homemaker-companion or home health...more
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has stepped up enforcement over no-poach/no-hire agreements under Federal antitrust laws. The DOJ recently tried two criminal cases against individual officers of...more
In a landmark case of first impression, the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division (Division) indicted and brought to trial a federal criminal prosecution alleging agreements between DaVita, Inc., its former CEO...more
A suite of bills aimed at further enhancing protections for both employees and independent contractors regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace are on the horizon in New York State. Several of...more
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its crackdown on alleged “no poach” or “wage fixing” market collusion between competitors. Last week, DOJ announced charges against four individuals operating home health...more
When the Department of Justice warns businesses and individuals, everyone needs to listen and respond accordingly. Starting in 2016, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division warned businesses that the Antitrust Division...more
For many federal government contractors, their skilled and experienced workforce may be their most valuable asset. A recent “ice breaker” settlement of a class action lawsuit, however, demonstrates the wrong way to protect...more
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania examined whether no-hire agreements (which, as their name suggests, prohibit one business from hiring employees from another business), are enforceable under...more
The health care industry is taking it on the chin these days. As DOJ increases False Claims Act prosecutions, the primary targets are pharmaceutical, medical device and health care providers. ...more
Q: I heard that companies entering into commercial contracts in Pennsylvania can no longer restrict each other from hiring their employees. Is that true?...more
My colleagues and I have written much recently regarding governmental antitrust authorities’ review of no-poach conduct (for example, see here). But let us not forget the additional scrutiny such agreements can face in...more
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a Superior Court order in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC et al., No. 31 WAP 2019, finding a no-hire provision between competing, sophisticated...more
Recently, in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, No. 31 WAP 2019, — A.3d –, 2021 WL 1676399 (Apr. 29, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that a no-hire provision that was ancillary to a...more
In a recent decision and case of first impression, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that a no-hire of employees provision between a business and its vendor was unenforceable because it constituted an...more
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided an issue of first impression regarding “no-hire” (or “no-poach”) provisions in commercial contracts between two companies. In such agreements, one company agrees not to solicit...more
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held unenforceable a no-hire provision in a service contract between a logistics company and a trucking firm. In Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking LLC, et. al.,...more
In a decision resolving a dispute that has been pending for nearly five years, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania just voided a no-hire provision entered into by two companies that bound one of them from hiring former...more