Photo of Mark S. Goldstein

Mark S. Goldstein

Subscribe to Mark S. Goldstein's Posts
Contact:Read more about Mark S. Goldstein

As we posted on Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has at long last issued its final regulatory rule banning virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements. In this series, we will unpack some of the more nuanced questions surrounding the final rule.

Does the final rule bar or invalidate non-compete agreements that ban competition while a worker is still employed by a business?

No. The final rule only applies to post-employment competitive activities. And in fact, in many states, employees have common law obligations to not engage in competitive activities during their employment, regardless and separate from any contractual obligations.Continue Reading Unpacking the FTC’s ban on U.S. non-compete agreements: Reviewing the fine print

As we posted on Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has at long last issued its final regulatory rule banning virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements. In this series, we will unpack some of the more nuanced questions surrounding the final rule. Although the series is generally applicable, today’s post is particularly geared toward non-profit organizations.

Does the final rule apply to entities claiming tax-exempt status as non-profits?

It depends. In the commentary to the final rule, the FTC explains that Congress empowered the agency to prevent “persons, partnerships, or corporations” from engaging in unfair methods of competition. To fall within the definition of “corporation” under the FTC Act, an entity must be “organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members.” These FTC Act provisions have been interpreted in commission precedent and judicial decisions to mean that the FTC lacks jurisdiction over corporations not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members.Continue Reading Unpacking the FTC’s ban on U.S. non-compete agreements: Impact on non-profit organizations

As we posted yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has at long last issued its final regulatory rule banning virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements. In this series, we will unpack some of the more nuanced questions surrounding the final rule. Although the series is generally applicable, today’s post is particularly geared toward private equity firms and financial institutions.

How does the sale-of-business exception work?

One of the exceptions to the final rule is that it does “not apply to a non-compete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.”

This language is fairly similar to an exception included in the FTC’s January 2023 proposed non-compete rule – however, there is an important change in the final rule. Specifically, the proposed rule included an exception for certain non-compete agreements between the seller and the buyer of a business that applied only to a substantial owner, member, or partner, defined as an owner, member, or partner with at least 25 percent ownership interest in the business entity being sold. In the final rule, however, the FTC has dropped the 25 percent ownership interest requirement.Continue Reading Unpacking the FTC’s ban on U.S. non-compete agreements: Impact on private equity and financial institutions

As we discussed in an October 2021 article regarding the future of restrictive covenant agreements in the U.S., President Biden in July 2021 directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to explore potential ways to limit the use of non-compete agreements. In January 2023, the FTC followed through on the President’s directive by proposing a regulatory rule that would effectively ban such agreements.

And on Tuesday afternoon, more than 15 months after publishing the proposed rule and after receiving more than 26,000 public comments on the January 2023 proposal, the FTC at long last unveiled and approved its final non-compete rule (the final rule) in a party line 3-2 vote.Continue Reading BREAKING: FTC bans virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements

As of March 12, 2024, New York employers are prohibited from requesting or obtaining access to the personal social media accounts of employees and applicants. Specifically, employers are not permitted to require employees or applicants to: (i) disclose their user names, passwords, or log-in information, (ii) access personal accounts in the presence of the employer; or (iii) reproduce any posts, including photos and videos, from personal accounts. In addition, employers may not discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize an employee or applicant because of their refusal to disclose such information. Continue Reading New York places limitations on employer access to employee social media

In the dynamic arena of labor laws and regulations, New York City is once again leading the charge with proposed changes that could have profound workplace implications. On February 28, 2024, the New York City Council introduced a trio of bills aimed at significantly curtailing the use of noncompete agreements in the Big Apple. Though these bills are currently pending, and it remains to be seen whether they will ultimately be enacted, employers should nevertheless take note of the bills given that they are part of a broader movement to rein in noncompete agreements across the U.S.:Continue Reading NYC legislators propose three bills to curtail noncompete agreements

On January 29, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an important decision addressing the enforceability of restrictive covenants. As detailed below, in Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie, the court upheld forfeiture-for-competition provisions set forth in a limited partnership (LP) agreement and ruled in favor of the partnership not having to pay out millions to former partners.

Key highlights

In Cantor Fitzgerald, the Delaware Supreme Court decision relied significantly on the following factors in enforcing the LP agreement as written and determining that the disputed provisions were, in fact, enforceable:

  • The restrictive covenant did not bar the claimants from engaging in competitive activities.
  • Rather, the provisions in question provided, in part, that receipt and retention of prior conditional awards of a portion of their compensation would be subject to the condition precedent that the recipient refrained from competing – in other words, these were forfeiture-for-competition provisions.
  • These forfeiture-for-competition provisions were not liquidated damages provisions (triggered by a breach of contract); rather, these provisions set up a condition precedent (not competing with the employer) to the employees’ receipt of the amounts that had been held back. 
  • The “employee choice doctrine” suggests that courts do not review forfeiture-for-competition provisions for reasonableness where, as here, the employee voluntarily terminates employment (as opposed to remaining employed and vesting in the contingent compensation amounts).

Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court confirms enforceability of restrictive covenant provisions in favor of employer-partnership, reversing Chancery Court determination

Employment legislation and litigation are often about trends. In the mid-to-late 2010’s, for instance, lawmakers across the U.S. enacted numerous bills concerning paid time off for employees, such as for sick and family leave. A more recent trend involves regulatory and legislative attempts to limit or even outright ban non-compete agreements.

In New York State, the unquestionable employment litigation trend over the past several years has revolved around frequency of pay claims under Section 191 of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). This trend was born out of a radical 2019 appellate court decision that broke from more than a century of judicial precedent.

As more fully discussed below, however, two recent developments – one legislative and one judicial – suggest that the flood of frequency of pay lawsuits may soon be a thing of the past.Continue Reading Are frequency of pay lawsuits in New York soon to be a thing of the past?

Last week, Governor Hochul announced a suite of proposed measures aimed at addressing rising maternal and infant mortality rates. As is relevant to New York employers, this includes a proposed expansion of New York State Paid Family Leave to include 40 hours of paid leave to attend prenatal medical appointments. If signed into law, this would make…

New York State lawmakers had a busy 2023 and have ushered in many new measures that will take effect throughout 2024. As New York employers look toward the new year, they should keep the following key dates in mind:

  • January 1, 2024 – The minimum wage rate in New York will increase to $16/hour in New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties and $15/hour in the rest of the state. Additionally, this will cause an increase to the exempt salary threshold for administrative and executive employees — to $1,200/week or $62,400/year in New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties and $1,124.20/week or $58,458.40/year in the rest of the state.
  • February 15, 2024 – The statute of limitations for filing administrative claims of unlawful discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law extends from one year to three years (running from the date of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice). Claims of sexual harassment are already subject to this three-year limitations period.

Continue Reading New year, new laws: Key compliance dates for New York employers