March 6, 2013

Laws and sausage

Posted in Application Process, Background Checking, Conviction Records, Criminal History, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Hiring and Recruiting, Non-Compete Agreements tagged , , , , at 10:00 am by Tom Jacobson

Laws are like sausages. Better not to see them being made.

John Godfrey Saxe

sausage440It’s that time of year again.  The Minnesota Legislature and Congress are both in session, so that gives us a chance to see what sort of legislation is being ground up and processed into what could become the new law of the land. Here are a couple of work-related bills worth watching.

Minnesota H.F. 506: This proposed law would void non-compete agreements in all but a few limited circumstances.  Generally speaking, it would bar non-competes between employers and employees.  This law would have a tremendous impact on any employer that uses non-competes as a tool for protecting their business interests.

Minnesota H.F. 690 /Minnesota S.F. 523: These bills would amend Minn. Stat. § 364.021 by prohibiting private sector employers from considering an applicant’s criminal record or criminal history until after the applicant has been selected for an interview. This restriction already exists for public employers, but the new law would expand this to private employers as well.

H.R. 675: Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, this bill, dubbed the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013, would amend the Family and Medical Leave act by removing from the law the requirement that before an employee is eligible for FMLA leave, s/he must work 1,250 hours during the year preceding the request for leave. Thus, if this bill were to become law, virtually any part-time employee with at least one year of service with an employer covered by the FMLA would gain FMLA leave rights.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com. If you have concerns about the impact of this legislation, please contact your duly elected senators and representatives.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2013 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

Advertisements

September 5, 2012

Called for Interference — off the Gridiron and in the Board Room

Posted in Application Process, Contracts, Hiring and Recruiting, Interference with Contract, Interference with Prospective Business, Non-Compete Agreements tagged , , , , , , at 8:11 am by Tom Jacobson

It’s that time of year again. The Twins’ dismal season is almost over, the Lynx are enjoying another great run, and we hope that maybe — just maybe — this will be the year the Vikings make the playoffs or the Gophers make it to a bowl game. In the meantime, we’ll have to wait and see if the replacement refs hired by the NFL during the lockout can tell the difference between good pass defense and interference.

The gridiron isn’t the only place where interference can be called, for interference can also be called on the playing field of business. Specifically, if someone improperly interferes with a contract between others, the interfering party can be held liable for the interference. Interference can also be called if someone improperly interferes with the potential business relationship between others.

But like in football, where there is a difference between good pass defense and pass interference, there is a difference between good old-fashioned business competition and wrongful interference. To prove improper interference with a contract, a plaintiff must prove that s/he had a contract with another, that the defendant knew about the contract, that the defendant intentionally caused a breach of the contract without justification, and that the plaintiff suffered damage because of the interference.

For example, if a company hires a great employee who once worked for a competitor, that’s just good old-fashioned competition. But, if that company knowingly hires an employee who should not work there because of a non-compete agreement with a former employer, the former employer may have a valid claim for contractual interference against the new employer.

What you need to know:  As a part of the hiring process, employers should develop a protocol for asking applicants if they are subject to any non-compete agreements, confidentiality agreements, or similar contracts that may restrict their ability to work for the new company.  This is particularly true for executive and management-level hires and all hires in highly competitive and technical industries where non-compete and confidentiality / non-disclosure agreements are relatively common.

Figuring out and playing by the rules in the business play book can be difficult. When you need help understanding or enforcing them, stop in, call, or contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

June 2, 2010

LinkedIn Liasons Lead to Lawsuit over Non-compete

Posted in Non-Compete Agreements, Social Media in the Workplace tagged , , , , , , , , at 7:43 am by Tom Jacobson

In a lawsuit filed recently in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, TEKSystems, Inc. alleges, among other things, that a former employee has violated a non-compete agreement by using LinkedIn.  Specifically, TEKSystems claims that the former employee has used LinkedIn to make “connections” with TEKSystems’  customers who were off-limits to her pursuant to the terms of her covenant not to compete.  TEKSystems is seeking money damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, and a court-ordered injunction to stop the alleged violations.

To read the full Complaint, visit http://bit.ly/9dBzHA.

Although it will likely take quite some time for this case to wind its way through the court system, there are lessons to be learned from the case.  First, employers who use non-compete agreements should have them drafted so that they are more likely apply to “cyber” violations as well as more traditional competition and solicitation.  Second, when seeking to enforce such agreements, employers should not overlook the possibility of social media violations.  Third, employees who are subject to such restrictive covenants would be wise to not try to end-run them by doing something on-line that would be prohibited in a more traditional context.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only.  They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship.  For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

%d bloggers like this: