Noncompete Agreements in the Crosshairs: What Business Owners and Employees Need to Know

SB Law • January 10, 2023

By:  Attorney Samuel J. Spurney

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed a rule that would ban the use of noncompete clauses in employment contracts.  Noncompete clauses have faced increased scrutiny by the FTC and the proposed rule is part of the FTC’s larger effort to promote competition and protect consumer welfare.

The FTC and other proponents of the abolition allege that noncompete clauses reduce employee mobility and lead to reduced innovation and higher prices for consumers. By banning noncompete clauses, the FTC hopes to create a more competitive business environment that will ultimately benefit consumers.

Business owners commonly use noncompete clauses in employment contracts to maintain a competitive advantage by preventing employees from taking valuable knowledge and experience gained while working for the company to a competitor.

While several states have abolished or limited the ability to use noncompete provisions in the employment context, the proposed rule would go a step further by banning their use at the federal level. If finalized and implemented, this would be a significant employment law development for businesses and employees.

Opponents of the FTC’s position state that the proposed rule is overbroad and will cause many unintended consequences.  As such, it is likely that any rule, if finalized, will face strong legal opposition.

It is important to note that at this time the proposed rule is just that – a proposal. The FTC is currently seeking public comment on the rule, and it remains to be seen whether there will be changes if the rule is finalized and implemented. Nevertheless, the proposal is a significant development for businesses and employees, and it is worth keeping an eye on as it moves through the regulatory process.

If you have questions or would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact the SB Law Business Team.  We would be honored to represent you and your business.  Straight Talk. Solid Advice.  That’s our way of doing business.

This blog post is provided for informational purposes only and by its very nature is very general.  This information is not intended as legal advice.

 

11 Oct, 2024
Attorney Alison Petri – Just the Facts 10/11/2024 – Medicaid Planning
21 Aug, 2024
Attorney Michelle Bischbach - Just The Facts 8/14/24 - Pet Trusts
21 Jun, 2024
Attorney Thomas Griesbach - Just the Facts 6/12/2024
22 Jan, 2024
Position Description - Law Firm Business Operations Manager
16 Jan, 2024
Just The Facts – 12/13/2023 – The Corporate Transparency Act / Transactional Attorney Assisting with Purchases/Sales
16 Oct, 2023
Attorney Gina Ziegelbauer 10/11/2023 – Powers of Attorney
22 Aug, 2023
Announcing Attorney Riley T. Printz  We are happy to announce the addition of Attorney Riley T. Printz to the Steimle Birschbach, LLC team! Having recently graduated from Marquette University Law School, Riley is excited to be practicing in Manitowoc and assisting in the Sheboygan area. Riley will focus his practice on business and real estate law.
15 Aug, 2023
Attorney Alison Petri – Just the Facts 8/9/2023 – Power of Attorney Basics
14 Jun, 2023
Attorney Thomas Griesbach - Just the Facts 6/14/2023
By SB Law 15 May, 2023
By: Attorney Thomas Griesbach Beneficiary designations (or sometimes called TOD [Transfer on Death] or POD [Payable on Death] designations) may be placed on almost any financial asset. A Non-Probate Transfer at Death Deed (“TOD Deed”) may be used to transfer Wisconsin real estate without court to whomever the grantor names in the TOD Deed. If a Decedent designates beneficiaries on all but fifty thousand dollars’ worth of his or her property, the Decedent will have avoided probate. While this strategy is not appropriate in all situations, it is often a simple and cost-effective way to avoid probate. But such a strategy may lead to unintended circumstances if the Decedent includes general bequests in his or her Will. A Will only governs probate property (i.e., a Decedent’s property that has no beneficiary designation and no surviving joint owner). Therefore, if a Decedent designates beneficiaries on nearly all his or her assets, there may be insufficient funds governed by the Will to satisfy the bequests made therein. Consider the following as an example. Grandma Betty has three adult children who are on good terms and get along. Betty wants to leave a sum of two thousand dollars to each of her ten grandchildren with the residue of her estate equally among her three children. Betty executes a Will accordingly and then proceeds to designate her children as beneficiaries of all her financial accounts. Upon Betty’s death, she owns tangible personal property of de minimums value and has no car or real estate. Her remaining wealth is contained in her financial accounts which pass directly to her children pursuant to the beneficiary designations. Consequently, there is no property governed by her Will and her grandchildren get nothing. There are numerous work arounds to avoid this unintended result, as discussion of which is beyond the scope of this blog. Simply know that your beneficiary designations must be properly correlated with your Will. If you are not confident in this, now is the best time to review the same. This blog post is provided for informational purposes only and by its very nature is general. This information is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon.
More Posts
Share by: