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
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.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A business’s employees are among its most valuable assets. Companies that provide professional services often run the risk that their clients may poach their employees. Think of information technology service providers, engineering firms, marketing companies, and staffing firms. In order to prevent clients from hiring away personnel, many service contracts contain “no poach” or “no hire” provisions which restrict the client from hiring away the service provider’s employees.
A recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court serves as a reminder that the enforceability of such provisions is far from guaranteed. In
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
My colleagues and I have written much recently regarding governmental antitrust authorities’ review of no-poach conduct (for example, see here). But let us not forget the additional scrutiny such agreements can face in commercial litigation. A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case considered, for the first time in that state, whether such provisions are enforceable under Pennsylvania law when they are ancillary to a services contract between two businesses.
See Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc.
v. Beemac Trucking, LLC., No. 31 WAP 2019, 2021 WL 1676399 (Pa. Apr. 29, 2021).
The case was brought by Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. (“PLS”), described as a logistics provider that arranged for the shipping of its customers’ freight with selected companies, against Beemac Trucking, LLC (“Beemac”), one of those selected companies. The Services Contract between the two companies apparently contained a one-year, no
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In a recent decision and case of first impression,
Pennsylvania s Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that a
no-hire of employees provision between a business and its vendor
was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint
on trade. This continues a nationwide pushback against restrictive
covenants and underscores that Pennsylvania strongly disfavors such
restrictions unless they are narrowly tailored to protect a
legitimate interest and do not harm the public, including innocent
third parties.
Background
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. (PLS) is a third-party
logistics provider that arranged for the shipping of its