Today
Variable clouds with scattered thunderstorms. A few storms may be severe. High 64F. Winds SSE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 50%..
Tonight
Variably cloudy with scattered thunderstorms. Low 52F. Winds SSE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 60%. Updated: May 22, 2021 @ 2:41 pm
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 bill became law under the terms of the District’s home rule law – a process explained in this article. The new Act became “effective” on March 21, 2021. The “applicability date” is different, however. The Act states in Section 302 that it will not become applicable until “the date of inclusion of its fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan” for the District – a requirement imposed by another D.C. law. Because the financial impact of the new law was not included
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, particularly those in lower-wage positions, really posed much of a future competitive threat. In recent years, in response to the overuse of noncompetes by employers, several states have passed legislation limiting their use – with the trend most acutely taking hold in the area surrounding Washington, D.C. Is the activity in the DMV an anomaly, or does it demonstrate the larger national picture?
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, those related to legitimate, procompetitive joint ventures[3] and corporate acquisitions,[4] are subject to the rule of reason, which considers whether the agreement is, on balance, anticompetitive.
Yet, four years later, there remain stubborn pockets of disagreement for example, no-poach clauses in franchise agreements. Federal courts are struggling to reach a consensus on how to analyze them under the antitrust laws. And there’s a lot at stake. Statistics show more than 8 million American