FTC takes aim at non-compete agreements

The Federal Trade Commission is proposing a new rule that would ban non-compete agreements because they suppress wages, hampers innovation and block entrepeneurs from starting new businesses. This is great news for workers.

For many years, I have represented workers who have been coerced into signing non-compete agreements that have stifled their ability to make a living. These agreements prevent workers from exercising their right to change jobs for more pay or better conditions. It is a terribly unfair burden to place on employees and gives employers far too much power over its employees, both current and former.

As proposed, the new rule would make it illegal for an employer to:

• enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete with a worker;
• maintain a noncompete with a worker; or
• represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

The proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also require employers to rescind existing noncompetes and actively inform workers that they are no longer in effect.

This last part - requiring that existing noncompetes be rescinded - could impact millions of workers.

The new rule is subject to public comments through March 10, 2023.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition

Nickled and Dimed to Death

Everyday Americans are about to be nickled and dimed to death, and no one seems to care.

Would you mind if AT&T over-charged you by $1.75 every month on your cell phone bill?

Or if your cable provider added an unidentified fee of $3.00 to every cable subscriber's bill without telling you?

How about if your employer started secretly deducting $5 bucks out of every Alabama fan's paycheck, just because your boss is an Auburn fan?

Or how about if your mortgage company or credit card issuer adds an extra day of interest to your debt every year?

Guess what? It doesn't matter if you mind or not, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that your best weapon against corporate thievery like that - a class action - can be taken away from you in the fine print of every contract you sign, so long as it hides behind the skirt of an arbitration clause.

Arson Investigators Might Get Overtime Pay

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that employees who spend time on both firefighting and law enforcement duties - such as arson investigators - are entitled to overtime pay based on how they divide their time on each duty.

You Can't Touch This! - $2.7 Million Verdict Against Harasser and Employer

Sexual propositions and unwanted touching in the workplace between a supervisor and his subordinates are a no-no. But an even bigger no-no is for a company to minimize or ignore the complaints of women because the harasser is a top earner for the company.

On February 12, a federal jury in Birmingham returned a verdict of $2.7 million against U.S. Security Associates, Inc, a security guard firm based in Atlanta, Georgia and Christopher Hargrove, the company's top executive in Alabama. The Plaintiff, Jamie Marks, sued USSA alleging sexual harassment when Hargrove repeatedly propositioned her for sex, inappropriately touched her, and masturbated in front of her on one occasion. Testimony at trial established that Marks' complaints were ignored by the company, and several witnesses testified that females working in the Birmingham office and elsewhere under Hargrove's supervision were routinely exposed to sexual innuendo, propositions, touching and threats. Despite complaints from several women, Hargrove remained employed with USSA throughout the lawsuit and trial, was never disciplined, and was even given bonuses and company stock. He is no longer employed with the company. Attorneys Alicia Haynes, Kenneth Haynes, and Brett Adair represented Ms. Marks.

Your job or your rights.

Paul Bland, one of the real warriors in the ongoing battle against the forces that are trying to eliminate the equalizing effects of the 7th Amendment's right to trial by jury by sending every dispute to arbitration, is once again sounding an alarm regarding the force-feeding of arbitration clauses to employees. Bland, a Staff Attorney with Public Justice (formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice), writes about trading your constitutional rights for a job on Today's Workplace, a blog with a worker-friendly perspective. In the post, he makes a beautiful point (one among many, actually) about the Hobson's choice facing many employees who are told they can either give up their right to have disputes with their employer heard in court by a jury, or give up their job. Bland writes: