by

Last week, on August 14, 2024, a Florida federal court addressed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) non-compete ban in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission and entered a limited preliminary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect and limited the preliminary injunction to the parties in the case. The court based its decision on the “major questions doctrine,” which prevents a federal agency from issuing substantive rules without express congressional authorization where such rules would have “extraordinary economic and political significance.” Indeed, the court found that the FTC rule would significantly impact the economy by modifying an area of law that has always been the province of state law.

This decision follows the lead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which issued a preliminary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect, but only regarding the plaintiff in the case of Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission.

Read on for more information in this blog post.

by

Earlier this month, we wrote about a Texas federal court’s issuance of a limited preliminary injunction staying the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule banning non-compete clauses for the plaintiffs in that case. Despite not issuing a preliminary nationwide ban, the Texas federal court stated it would render a final decision on August 30, 2024, before the rule becomes effective on September 4, 2024. Based on language contained in the Texas federal court’s opinion on the preliminary injunction, it appears likely that the Texas federal court will ultimately issue a permanent injunction, effectively killing the FTC’s non-compete ban.

However, on July 23, 2024, a federal court in Pennsylvania refused to follow the Texas court’s lead and decided not to enjoin the FTC’s non-compete ban temporarily. Unlike the Texas federal court, the Pennsylvania federal court ruled that the plaintiff did not satisfy its burden of establishing the need for a preliminary injunction.

Read the full blog post.

by

We previously wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) issuance of a rule banning non-compete clauses in employment. The FTC’s issuance of its final rule banning non-compete clauses constituted an unprecedented intrusion into matters of state law, which governed non-compete clauses. Nevertheless, it appears now that the FTC’s non-compete ban is beginning to unravel.

Last week, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, issued a preliminary injunction against the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning non-compete clauses in employment. Read the full blog post here.

by

New York has amended its sick leave law (Labor Law § 196-b) to provide paid prenatal personal leave to all employees. Effective January 1, 2025, all employers shall be required to provide their employees with 20 hours of paid prenatal personal leave per 52-week period. Prenatal personal leave is leave taken by an employee “during their pregnancy or related to such pregnancy,” including for physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions related to pregnancy with a health care provider. Prenatal personal leave may be taken in hourly increments.

Unlike overlapping leaves that run concurrently, prenatal personal leave is in addition to the paid or unpaid sick leave already required by New York law. Moreover, unlike sick leave currently required in New York, an employee qualifies for paid prenatal personal leave immediately upon hire. Read on for more information in this blog post.

by

Two days ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its “Final Rule” banning non-compete clauses in employment. Until now, the FTC never officially declared that such clauses constituted an “unfair method of competition.” The Final Rule seeks to upend centuries of state law governing the use of non-compete clauses in employment, including state laws that already limit or ban their use. The federal government’s encroachment into traditional state law is not necessarily unprecedented, but in this case, will likely fail.

Read on for more information in this blog post.

by

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a Final Rule on the standards for determining independent contractor status for purposes of minimum wage and overtime pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Although the Final Rule is considered “new,” it is based on the standard that was applied prior to the 2021 enactment of the Trump Administration’s rule, which had relaxed the standard for classifying workers as independent contractors, but also provided greater certainty to employers. The Final Rule reinstates the so-called “economic realities” test, which is generally more likely to result in a finding that a worker is an “employee.” Read on for more information in this blog post.

by

This week, the New York State Assembly passed a bill identical to a bill passed by the Senate earlier this month banning non-compete agreements in employment. The bills now await Governor Hochul’s signature.  If she signs them, the law will take effect 30 days later. Read on for more information on the non-compete ban.

by

The New York State Senate recently passed a bill barring noncompete agreements in employment. If the Assembly adopts the bill within the next few weeks, it will be sent to Governor Hochul for signature. It’s likely that the bill won’t make it passed the Assembly, but if it does it will have enormous implications in New York and beyond. Take a look at the text of the bill: S3100A.

 

 

by

On April 6, 2023, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) issued a Final Rule to provide guidance regarding the City’s Automated Employment Decision Tool (“AEDT”) Law, which we covered in more detail here. The Final Rule generally clarifies employer obligations under the AEDT Law, which will be enforced beginning July 5, 2023. Click here for more information.

 

 

 

Super Lawyers
Contact Information
White Plains
445 Hamilton Ave
#1102
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 725-5800 Fax: (860) 240-5936
Stamford
107 Elm St 4 Stamford Plaza 11th Floor
Stamford, CT 06902
Phone: (203) 653-5436

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Murtha Cullina LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design