Class Action | Eleventh Circuit Reinstates No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King
Four days before President Trump took office, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (together, “the Agencies”) under the Biden administration released their “Antitrust Guidelines for Business...more
On December 4, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) ordered building services contractor Guardian Industries, Inc. (“Guardian”) to cease enforcement of no-hire provisions it included in customer service agreements with...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
Partner Jay Bogan recently discussed the Eleventh Circuit Reinstating No Hire Antitrust Claims Against Burger King....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
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
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
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
Executive Summary: The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50, et seq.) (“RCA”) governs restrictive covenant agreements in Georgia entered into after May 2011. The RCA expressly addresses non-compete,...more
The 2019 legal landscape of employee mobility continues to evolve, at times drastically. Courts and legislatures are giving increased scrutiny to employers’ claims to protect the confidentiality of their trade secrets and...more
Countless companies contract with other companies to provide services and include a “no hire” provision (pursuant to which the parties to the contract agree to not hire employees of the contracting company) in the service...more
On January 11, 2019, in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. BeeMac Trucking, LLC and BeeMac Logistics, LLC, a panel of nine judges sitting en banc affirmed a ruling holding that a no-hire agreement between two companies was...more
The law in California is well settled that, with few exceptions, non-compete agreements are unenforceable. Less clear is whether and to what extent employee non-solicitation and no-hire agreements can withstand a court’s...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently broadened California's already expansive interest in promoting employee mobility by voiding any contract provision imposing a meaningful obstacle to a California resident's ability...more