Ban On Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act Of 2019

It can be said that an exemption is not necessary for inactivity agreements. The reason for this would be that the consent of a worker, a client or an employee of his employer does not „limit[] or prohibit, by nature, the worker from preventing the worker from being … employed by another employer“ either in „a specific geographic area, or „[f]or indeterminate or defined.“ However, as with any new legislation, there will inevitably be controversies over the intended scope of the law. By not .C explicitly excluding initiative agreements in the bill, as Massachusetts and Washington legislators have done, the D.C Council could leave the door open to litigation on this issue. Certainly, the additional clarity of a „carve-out“ for initiative agreements would be welcomed by employers and could avoid a number of legal interpretation disputes. [24] See for example. B A Bill for an Act Relating to Fair Employment Practices, SB 328/HB 1059, 30th Leg. (Haw. 2019); A law limiting certain provisions in restrictive alliances and supplementing Title 34 of the revised statutes, A.B. 1650, 219. A Act to Mend the Labor Law, in relation to Prohibiting non-Compete Agreements and Certain Co covenant Restrictions, S5790/A7193, 243rd Leg. (N.Y.

2019). In addition to these government measures, on October 16, 2019, Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Todd Young (R-IN) passed the Workforce Mobility Act of 2019 (P.2614). The legislation, a multi-party effort, would prohibit non-competitive agreements, except for the dissolution of partnerships and the sale of a business under federal law. Employers who impose illegal competition bans would be fined up to $5,000 per week if illegal non-competition bans were effective and individual workers had the right to sue privately for damages in federal court. We will continue to monitor legislation and take follow-up action when and when the legislation comes into force. In the meantime, employers may revise or strengthen their non-invitation and/or confidentiality rules that do not appear to be involved in the law. In addition, employers should consider their approach to non-competition in general and, in particular, whether they are necessary for workers at fixed income levels under the law. As established, B23-0494 actually prohibits employers from entering into non-compete agreements with workers whose „wage rate“ is three or three times the minimum wage. Using the current D.C. Minimum wage of $15 per hour, the bill would apply to workers earning up to $45 per hour. With respect to its coverage, the bill borrows the definitions of „workers“ and „employers“ from the 1992 Minimum Wage Review Act (D.C.

Act 9-248; D.C Code 32-1002 (2) and 32-1002 (3)), which means that an employer subject to this law would be covered. For example, in July 2018, OAG joined a coalition of attorneys general to investigate several fast food franchises that have branches across the country, including the District of Columbia. The investigation examined the use of restrictive employment rules – including non-competition agreements – with respect to their restaurant workers, who often work for or around the minimum wage and who rarely have access, if necessary, to trade secrets or sensitive business information.

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.