Non-Compete Ban Update: Court Update
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- A July 23, 2024, non-compete ban update that employees (and the FTC) will like…
Today a Pennsylvania judge denied a 12-person tree company’s request for a preliminary injunction and to halt the FTC’s ban from taking effect September 4. The FTC and employees will be happy.
BUT there’s still one other case active. Keep your eyes on a Texas court August 30 when the ban could potentially be halted nationwide at the last minute.
I break it down here - and include cites for you legal eagles (PA case: ATS Tree Services v FTC, ED PA 24-1743; Texas case: Ryan LLC v FTC, ND Texas 3:24-cv-00986).
#noncompete #noncompeteban #ftc
Great content!
Great listen - thanks for sharing!
Super informative. Thank you!
Thank you for the update 🙏🏼
I'm living a non compete nightmare right now. Wouldn't wish it on anyone
As an employee or as an employer? (My guess is as an employee!) If you're open to sharing, I'm sure others would be curious to read more :)
That second case is exactly why the FTC made this rule. If you didn't make it so people would not be able to continue in their trade if they leave, they would, then it means you obviously aren't paying them competetive wages. A non-compete is tantamount to slavery.
This is basically forced servitude if it's allowed to continue. How can one judge in Texas decide something for the entire country?
How does Chevron affect this ?
Generally, most agree that overruling Chevron makes it even more likely that the non-compete ban gets struck down, but the TX and PA courts have looked at it a bit differently.
The Texas court (Ryan LLC case) cited Loper Bright (the case overruling Chevron) briefly, and found that the FTC's rule is likely "arbitrary and capricious" so should be struck down.
The PA court (ATS Tree Services LLC) cited Loper Bright and noted in a footnote that it could not defer to the FTC's interpretation of a statute, but still finds the ban is within the FTC's authority.
I think we'll likely see how Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court interpret it sooner rather than later.