Published: June 21, 2017

A Massachusetts trial court judge sitting in the Business Litigation Session recently issued a decision, in Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez (1684CV003911-BLS2) (June 9, 2017), refusing to enforce Massachusetts choice of law and choice of venue provisions in an employment contract on the ground that enforcement would result in a “substantial injustice” to the defendant, a California-based employee.

. . . . . .

Published: April 26, 2017

On April 19, 2017, a Pennsylvania appeals court ruled that conversion to at-will employment after the end of a contract does not relieve employees of a non-solicitation provision. This opinion overturns a trial court decision against Metalico Pittsburgh, Inc., a scrap metal broker.
 

. . . . . .

Published: October 5, 2016

On September 25, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law S.B. 1241, which prohibits employers from requiring employees, as a condition of employment: (1) to litigate or arbitrate claims arising in California outside of California; and (2) to agree to the application of another state’s law for controversies arising in California.  These prohibitions apply to contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017, and are applicable to employees who primarily reside and work in California.

. . . . . .

Published: June 8, 2015

Resolving previously unsettled law in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held in Runzheimer International Ltd v. Friedlen that continued employment of an at-will employee following the execution of a restrictive covenant, such as a non-competition agreement, is sufficient consideration to enforce the restrictive covenant.

. . . . . .

Published: August 20, 2013

In a somewhat surprising development, the Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled that restrictive covenants are not enforceable if an employee has worked less than two (2) years for the employer seeking enforcement, unless that employee has received special, additional consideration beyond being hired for agreeing to the restriction. Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, June 24, 2013).

. . . . . .

Published: January 27, 2012

Arnstein & Lehr Partner E. Jason Tremblay authored the article, “5 ways to protect your company when a key employee departs,” which appeared in the January 23 edition of Inside Counsel. In the article, he stresses the importance for all companies to know what steps to take when an employee decides to leave, especially in circumstances where he or she leaves to work for a competitor.

. . . . . .

Published: December 28, 2010

The Second District Appellate Court in Illinois recently published an extensive opinion that summarized and provided the historical background of the state of Illinois law regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants. While the decision did not make any new law in this area, the decision does provide a reminder that restrictive covenants are a restraint of trade that will only be enforced by courts if the restraint protects a legitimate business interest and is reasonable in both time and geographic scope.

. . . . . .