FTC bans non-competes

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
10,765
9,177
113
Might be relevant for some folks here. Existing ones cannot be enforced and no new ones can be enacted.

Pretty huge news. My wife is under two non-competes right now, and while we aren’t considering, making a move, you never know.

Obviously Jimmy John’s having non-competes for restaurant employees is a bit extreme. But for some industries, it makes sense and adds a bit of protection for the employer.

of course, there will be lawsuits left and right and this will probably end up at the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMickeySC

KingWard

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2022
5,388
5,805
113
Might be relevant for some folks here. Existing ones cannot be enforced and no new ones can be enacted.

Pretty huge news. My wife is under two non-competes right now, and while we aren’t considering, making a move, you never know.

Obviously Jimmy John’s having non-competes for restaurant employees is a bit extreme. But for some industries, it makes sense and adds a bit of protection for the employer.

of course, there will be lawsuits left and right and this will probably end up at the Supreme Court.
I don't see how this one doesn't go all the way up behind the columns. There's a lot at stake there.
 

CAROLINA COCKTAIL

Joined Feb 15, 2018
Jan 17, 2022
344
595
93
of course, there will be lawsuits left and right and this will probably end up at the Supreme Court.
By a number of your comments it sounds like you have a problem with the American Justice System. Care to continue to comment and prove it?
 
Feb 24, 2024
221
195
43

CAROLINA COCKTAIL

Joined Feb 15, 2018
Jan 17, 2022
344
595
93
Seems like it could have a chilling effect on apprenticeships or the like.
Gotta ask ... Are you a Puddle Jumper? No disrespect!!! Only respect and Admiration. My Dad was a decorated shallow water sailor, (USS Cavalier) and the baddest ***, next to me, I ever knew.
 

Evilchicken

Active member
Mar 25, 2022
498
391
63
This is GREAT news! I’m in Medical Device, and NC’s prevent me from taking better jobs within the same product category
 

CAROLINA COCKTAIL

Joined Feb 15, 2018
Jan 17, 2022
344
595
93
@CAROLINA COCKTAIL I don't see how @18IsTheMan is doing anything here other than making a neutral-toned surmisation. Why the charged provocation?

Thanks, for asking. Perhaps, YOU are correct! However, unfortunately, I have seen (too often) seeking a legal remedy, especially on this board, is considered a ... weakness. Numb Nuts IS going to prison ... get used to it!!! PLEASE FOLLOW UP! So I can laugh at your stupid ***!!!. IF I'm Wrong .... YOU get to laugh at my stupid ***!!! Your WAy .... The USA is DEAD!!!
 

Forkcock

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2022
942
1,023
93
I have a NC that would prevent me from being able to make a living in my field for 2 years if I left my current employer.
 

Prestonyte

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
5,199
5,189
113
Might be relevant for some folks here. Existing ones cannot be enforced and no new ones can be enacted.

Pretty huge news. My wife is under two non-competes right now, and while we aren’t considering, making a move, you never know.

Obviously Jimmy John’s having non-competes for restaurant employees is a bit extreme. But for some industries, it makes sense and adds a bit of protection for the employer.

of course, there will be lawsuits left and right and this will probably end up at the Supreme Court.
What about NDA's? Could be used to harass those looking to escape non-competes with lawsuits.
 

Big JC

Well-known member
May 12, 2023
1,202
876
113
My industry is rife with non competes. I would love to see them all go away. I've turned down jobs because of them and quit a job that decided after 10 years they wanted me to sign one.

I have agreed with almost nothing the Biden administration has done but I wholeheartedly agree with this.
 

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
10,765
9,177
113
My industry is rife with non competes. I would love to see them all go away. I've turned down jobs because of them and quit a job that decided after 10 years they wanted me to sign one.

I have agreed with almost nothing the Biden administration has done but I wholeheartedly agree with this.
I agree to an extent. Some are overly restrictive. My wife had a non-compete at her previous job that restricted her from working anywhere in the same county for 2 years and it's a BIG county. Her new job has a non-compete that is like a 5 mile radius or something not a big deal.

I agree that non-competes at places like Jimmy John's which prevented workers from leaving to work at another sandwich shop was absurd.

But in some situations, it makes sense. My wife is a physician and worked for a small practice. Without a non-compete, she could have worked there to build up a patient base, then left, went across the street to start her own practice and taken hundreds of patients from the other practice.

I do think employers like that need SOME protections, but I don't know it could possibly be regulated to ensure non-competes weren't overly restrictive.
 

Big JC

Well-known member
May 12, 2023
1,202
876
113
I agree to an extent. Some are overly restrictive. My wife had a non-compete at her previous job that restricted her from working anywhere in the same county for 2 years and it's a BIG county. Her new job has a non-compete that is like a 5 mile radius or something not a big deal.

I agree that non-competes at places like Jimmy John's which prevented workers from leaving to work at another sandwich shop was absurd.

But in some situations, it makes sense. My wife is a physician and worked for a small practice. Without a non-compete, she could have worked there to build up a patient base, then left, went across the street to start her own practice and taken hundreds of patients from the other practice.

I do think employers like that need SOME protections, but I don't know it could possibly be regulated to ensure non-competes weren't overly restrictive.
My thought is; they are your wife's patients, they come to see her. If she wasn't at that practice neither would those patients be there. I'm assuming the practice is set up where patients see a particular doctor and is not a general clinic type practice where patients see whoever is available.

If the practice decided to cut your wife's pay such that she wanted to leave or terminate her for some reason, she would be in a position where she would have to start from zero again. I don't think that is fair at all. Non competes enable the employer to treat employees like indentured servants who have no recourse other than changing careers or moving to another town or area and starting over.

A 5 mile radius limitation for a physician seems like no big deal at all but if you plotted it on a map you would be surprised at how much area that is. Employers need protection from employees stealing trade secrets and products if they have a proprietary product but preventing an employee from making a living in their field is not the solution.
 

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Jan 28, 2022
1,210
1,637
113
I have a NC that would prevent me from being able to make a living in my field for 2 years if I left my current employer.
If my memory is correct, non-competes that are unreasonably broad in scope have been invalidated in litigation. There is probably a reasonable middle ground between completely restricting a former employee's ability to make a living in their chosen field and completely invalidating all NC agreements. If I were a dentist or veterinarian in a small town, for example, I'd be less likely to hire and train a young new doctor and bring them into the practice for several years without a non-compete agreement that would prevent them from opening a competing practice a few blocks away. On the other hand, a non-compete agreement that prevents them from opening _anywhere_ would be unreasonable. Which begs the question: Why would they sign that?
 
Last edited:

Prestonyte

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
5,199
5,189
113
I'm not an attorney, but I can see the NDA's being used in a similar manner but without the geographical or time limit restrictions of non-competes. They were certainly used heavy handedly when I was in the pharma business.
 

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Jan 28, 2022
1,210
1,637
113
Gotta ask ... Are you a Puddle Jumper? No disrespect!!! Only respect and Admiration. My Dad was a decorated shallow water sailor, (USS Cavalier) and the baddest ***, next to me, I ever knew.
Nope, it's purely coincidental that the acronym in my avatar looks like a reference to the coast guard. I didn't think that one through enough, but I've had it for over 20 years now, so I guess I'll keep it. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAROLINA COCKTAIL

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
10,765
9,177
113
If my memory is correct, non-competes that are unreasonably broad in scope have been overturned in litigation. There is probably a reasonable middle ground between completely restricting a former employee's ability to make a living in their chosen field and completely invalidating all NC agreements. If I were a dentist or veterinarian in a small town, for example, I'd be less likely to hire and train a young new doctor and bring them into the practice for several years without a non-compete agreement that would prevent them from opening a competing practice a few blocks away. On the other hand, a non-compete agreement that prevents them from opening _anywhere_ would be unreasonable. Which begs the question: Why would they sign that?

Right. In a lot of fields, the employer makes an enormous investment beyond just salary and benefits in hiring and training someone. To have that person then leave and set up a competing business down the street would be a killer for some smaller businesses like you mention. FTC notes that this decision will create 8,500 new businesses each year, but it will surely put quite a few out of business as well.

I don't have the answer, and there probably isn't a perfect answer, but it seems like there is a balance to be had somewhere between an all-out ban and overly restrictive NCs.
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
337
322
63
A few years after I was hired at my current company, they came out with a non-compete and something about rights to inventions. I have yet to sign either one of them and they never one time pushed me on it either. I work in a specialized line of work. HVAC Controls. I was not about to sign something that would not let me continue working in my same field of work without moving outside of SC and NC since that is the company territory. Been at this company for 25 years now and would have left if they pushed me on it. Thankfully they did not. I do not think I could have found a better company to work for where the owners actually care about their people.
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
337
322
63
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes
FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes
FTC’s final rule will generate over 8,500 new businesses each year, raise worker wages, lower health care costs, and boost innovation
April 23, 2024

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increasing innovation, and fostering new business formation.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

The FTC estimates that the final rule banning noncompetes will lead to new business formation growing by 2.7% per year, resulting in more than 8,500 additional new businesses created each year. The final rule is expected to result in higher earnings for workers, with estimated earnings increasing for the average worker by an additional $524 per year, and it is expected to lower health care costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade. In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 years under the final rule.

Banning Non Competes: Good for workers, businesses, and the economy
1713969448580.gif

Noncompetes are a widespread and often exploitative practice imposing contractual conditions that prevent workers from taking a new job or starting a new business. Noncompetes often force workers to either stay in a job they want to leave or bear other significant harms and costs, such as being forced to switch to a lower-paying field, being forced to relocate, being forced to leave the workforce altogether, or being forced to defend against expensive litigation. An estimated 30 million workers—nearly one in five Americans—are subject to a noncompete.

Under the FTC’s new rule, existing noncompetes for the vast majority of workers will no longer be enforceable after the rule’s effective date. Existing noncompetes for senior executives - who represent less than 0.75% of workers - can remain in force under the FTC’s final rule, but employers are banned from entering into or attempting to enforce any new noncompetes, even if they involve senior executives. Employers will be required to provide notice to workers other than senior executives who are bound by an existing noncompete that they will not be enforcing any noncompetes against them.

In January 2023, the FTC issued a proposed rule which was subject to a 90-day public comment period. The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on the proposed rule, with over 25,000 comments in support of the FTC’s proposed ban on noncompetes. The comments informed the FTC’s final rulemaking process, with the FTC carefully reviewing each comment and making changes to the proposed rule in response to the public’s feedback.

In the final rule, the Commission has determined that it is an unfair method of competition, and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, for employers to enter into noncompetes with workers and to enforce certain noncompetes.

The Commission found that noncompetes tend to negatively affect competitive conditions in labor markets by inhibiting efficient matching between workers and employers. The Commission also found that noncompetes tend to negatively affect competitive conditions in product and service markets, inhibiting new business formation and innovation. There is also evidence that noncompetes lead to increased market concentration and higher prices for consumers.

Alternatives to Noncompetes
The Commission found that employers have several alternatives to noncompetes that still enable firms to protect their investments without having to enforce a noncompete.

Trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) both provide employers with well-established means to protect proprietary and other sensitive information. Researchers estimate that over 95% of workers with a noncompete already have an NDA.

The Commission also finds that instead of using noncompetes to lock in workers, employers that wish to retain employees can compete on the merits for the worker’s labor services by improving wages and working conditions.

Changes from the NPRM
Under the final rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force. Employers, however, are prohibited from entering into or enforcing new noncompetes with senior executives. The final rule defines senior executives as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions.

Additionally, the Commission has eliminated a provision in the proposed rule that would have required employers to legally modify existing noncompetes by formally rescinding them. That change will help to streamline compliance.

Instead, under the final rule, employers will simply have to provide notice to workers bound to an existing noncompete that the noncompete agreement will not be enforced against them in the future. To aid employers’ compliance with this requirement, the Commission has included model language in the final rule that employers can use to communicate to workers.

The Commission vote to approve the issuance of the final rule was 3-2 with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson voting no. Commissioners’ written statements will follow at a later date.

The final rule will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Once the rule is effective, market participants can report information about a suspected violation of the rule to the Bureau of Competition by emailing [email protected].

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
 

Gamecock72

Joined Sep 24, 2019
Jan 24, 2022
337
322
63
What about NDA's? Could be used to harass those looking to escape non-competes with lawsuits.
My understanding is this is only for preventing someone from working somewhere, the protection of data and such is still protected.
 

Big JC

Well-known member
May 12, 2023
1,202
876
113
I don't how it doesn't end up at SCOTUS.
It will have to become a question of whether the FTC has the authority to make such a ruling for the SCOTUS to hear it. It seems to me this should already be governed by some prior SCOTUS ruling. I'm no expert on the FTC but I find it hard to imagine they would have made this ruling without some lawyer types reviewing it.
 

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
10,765
9,177
113
It will have to become a question of whether the FTC has the authority to make such a ruling for the SCOTUS to hear it. It seems to me this should already be governed by some prior SCOTUS ruling. I'm no expert on the FTC but I find it hard to imagine they would have made this ruling without some lawyer types reviewing it.
I am sure, but there will be legal challenges galore.
 

LexCock11

Joined Nov 26, 2018
Jan 30, 2022
433
739
93
As someone said, many of them are overly restrictive. Each of the ones I've signed had several parts that (per my lawyer) were unenforceable. Employers put this stuff in there thinking employees don't know any better or won't talk to a lawyer and maybe won't go to a competitor in cases where they can.
 

Big JC

Well-known member
May 12, 2023
1,202
876
113
As someone said, many of them are overly restrictive. Each of the ones I've signed had several parts that (per my lawyer) were unenforceable. Employers put this stuff in there thinking employees don't know any better or won't talk to a lawyer and maybe won't go to a competitor in cases where they can.
That is another reason they should be illegal. There is no reason for an employee to have to consult an attorney when they want to leave a job and go to another job. Companies should not be able to restrict legal competition in a free market by shackling employees to their jobs with noncompete clauses in employment contracts.

I have no issue with preventing an employee who leaves a job from taking customer records or product lists from the current employer. However, if an employee wants to leave and start his own business and compete with the company he works for, he should be able to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LexCock11

1vagamecock

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
878
656
93
A few years ago Big Brown gave it's reins to its Current CEO (who is currently dismantling the company).
Shortly thereafter she sold the division I was in to a Company out of Canada. Shortly after that the new Company laid a ton of us off.
Since I had the skill and knowledge to help Big Brown (and they had positions available) I tried to gain employment with them only to find out the new company and Big Brown had come to an agreement they would not hire people that had worked for each other.
To me this ruling seams justified.
 

Yard_Pimps

Active member
Jul 11, 2022
772
438
63
My thought is; they are your wife's patients, they come to see her. If she wasn't at that practice neither would those patients be there. I'm assuming the practice is set up where patients see a particular doctor and is not a general clinic type practice where patients see whoever is available.

If the practice decided to cut your wife's pay such that she wanted to leave or terminate her for some reason, she would be in a position where she would have to start from zero again. I don't think that is fair at all. Non competes enable the employer to treat employees like indentured servants who have no recourse other than changing careers or moving to another town or area and starting over.

A 5 mile radius limitation for a physician seems like no big deal at all but if you plotted it on a map you would be surprised at how much area that is. Employers need protection from employees stealing trade secrets and products if they have a proprietary product but preventing an employee from making a living in their field is not the solution.
In my opinion that’s what NDA’s are for.
 

Latest posts