Page 9 - Workforce Mobility Act News Today

EIG American Dynamism Series | The Case for Non-compete Reform   On April 29th, the Economic Innovation Group (EIG) hosted a webinar to discuss the Workforce Mobility Act [1], recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation from U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Todd Young (R-IN), that would limit the use of non-compete agreements that curtail worker mobility, stem wage growth, and stifle entrepreneurship and innovation. Today, around 20 percent of American workers are covered by a non-compe...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: UPDATE (4-5-21): The D.C. law is “effective” as of March 21, 2021 but will not be “applicable” until the Fall of 2021. Here are the details: There has been confusion over when compliance with the new D.C. law will be required. The uncertainty is caused by the presence of both the terms “effective date” and “applicability date” in the new law without explaining their meanings. The “effective date” is the date the bi...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Noncompetition agreements are common tools used by employers to prevent former employees from unfairly competing against them. Traditionally, many states have allowed employers to require employees to sign noncompetes as long as they were reasonable in scope and protected an employer’s legitimate business interests. In turn, employers often required every employee to sign a noncompete even when it was unlikely that certain employees...

On February 25, 2021, the Workforce Mobility Act, a bipartisan bill to limit the use of non-compete agreements, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.),...

Legal Disclaimer You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Reviews (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLCs  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not b...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: With 2020 finally in our rearview mirror, we can begin to look ahead to a promising and prosperous 2021. As the cloud of COVID-19 starts to lift (thanks to several vaccines), we expect employers will slowly begin to reopen their offices, employees will travel more, and the job market may revert back to the low unemployment levels that predated the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020. The ever-changing landscape of restrictive covenants ce...

Friday, January 15, 2021 With 2020 finally in our rearview mirror, we can begin to look ahead to a promising and prosperous 2021. As the cloud of COVID-19 starts to lift (thanks to several vaccines), we expect employers will slowly begin to reopen their offices, employees will travel more, and the job market may revert back to the low unemployment levels that predated the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020. The ever-changing landscape of restrictive covenants certainly could affect all o...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: In 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued Joint Guidance for Human Resource Professionals warning that no-poach agreements restricting employee hiring may violate the antitrust laws.[1] That guidance, along with pre-guidance litigation, has established some clear ground rules. Naked no-poach agreements are per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act,[2] while ancillary no-poach agreements, ...