Employment Law Insight
This brings us to the final phase of this series – meeting with your attorney. Having worked with many employees seeking to continue to work in their chosen field, but faced with a restrictive covenant, the initial meeting with the clients often runs the gamut of reactions
Time and Geography Terms in a Non-Compete – Are They Reasonable Restraints on Your Ability to Make a Living? (Part 2 of 3)
Time and geographical limitations must be based on your employer’s reasonable, protectable business interest. Even if a court were to hold that the employer had a protectable business interest and enforceable non-compete, you still have the ability to question the time and geographic terms of the restriction.
An Executive’s View Of Non-Compete in an Improving Economy (Part 1 of 3) : Considering a Lateral Move?
With signs pointing to an improving economy, businesses are looking for avenues of growth. One avenue is lateral hires of executives, a practice that substantially slowed during the cash strapped period of job insecurity known as the Great Recession.
The new federal overtime regulations take affect December 1, 2016. You should act soon to determine if the regulations affect your business.
Employee of Staffing Agency Can File a Discrimination Claim Against the Company to Whom He was Placed
Faush sued Tuesday Morning alleging race discrimination. In responding to the lawsuit, Tuesday Morning argued that it was not liable because Faush was not its employee.
Even though the number of charges filed with the EEOC/PHRC have fallen since 2012, there is a good chance an employer will have to respond to a charge of discrimination.
Your company has just received notice that a former employee has filed a charge of discrimination. You are shocked and angry about the charge.
The recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Hess v. Gephart & Co., Inc. Pa. Supreme Court, Docket 104 MAP 2001, (Decided October 16, 2002) will most likely require employers and employees to re-examine their employment relationship where there has been a transfer of assets between companies and where those assets include employment contracts which contain restrictive covenants.
The recent case of Savage, Sharkey, Riser & Szulborski Eyecare Consultants, P.C. v. Tanner continues a trend by Pennsylvania courts to strictly construe and enforce – to the letter – terms of restrictive covenants, and is another Pennsylvania case where a successor company was unable to enforce a covenant not-to-compete.