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
California
United-states
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Virginia
Texas
Pittsburgh-logistics-systems-inc
Supreme-court
Beemac-trucking
Pittsburgh-logistics-systems
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.
California
United-states
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Virginia
Texas
Pittsburgh-logistics-systems-inc
Supreme-court
Beemac-trucking
Logistics-systems