vimarsana.com

Latest Breaking News On - தளவாடங்கள் அமைப்புகள் - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

McLeod sees 58% sales increase, Transflo expands suite

Clockwork Logistics Systems raises $3 million in venture capital - Sacramento Business Journal

Clockwork Logistics Systems raises $3 million in venture capital - Sacramento Business Journal
bizjournals.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from bizjournals.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.

These companies received PPP loans and still laid off workers

These companies received PPP loans and still laid off workers
fox43.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from fox43.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Voids No-Hire Provision In Service Contract Between Two Employers - Employment and HR

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Q: I heard that companies entering into commercial contracts in Pennsylvania can no longer restrict each other from hiring their employees. Is that true? A: On April 29, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking LLC, et. al. that a no-hire provision (commonly referred to as a “no-poach” provision) in a service contract between two business entities was unenforceable as an impermissible restraint of trade because it was overbroad and created a likelihood of harm to nonparties to the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Voids No-Hire Provision in Service Contract Between Two Employers | Troutman Pepper

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: Q: I heard that companies entering into commercial contracts in Pennsylvania can no longer restrict each other from hiring their employees. Is that true? A: On April 29, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking LLC, et. al. that a no-hire provision (commonly referred to as a “no-poach” provision) in a service contract between two business entities was unenforceable as an impermissible restraint of trade because it was overbroad and created a likelihood of harm to nonparties to the contract ( i.e., affected employees and the general public). This decision comes at a time where there has been considerable concern that no-poach agreements violate federal and state antitrust laws. In this case, however, the Court did not conclude that all no-hire provisions found in commercial contracts are void as a matter of state law.

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.