No comments yet

California No Poach Agreements

In the summer of 2018, a coalition of more than a dozen attorneys general (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia) sent letters to eight franchise-based national fast food chains, demanding information about their franchise agreements and no-poaching clauses. Many of these companies then agreed to abandon their non-poaching clauses. On July 17, 2018, you`ll find in Knowledge@Wharton articles and podcast from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business with the article “How Fair – or Legal – non-Poaching Agreements?” – You`ll find more information today about this case and other competition contracts in California from an employment law expert in San Francisco. On the heels of enforcement actions by states and the federal government and other legislative efforts to stop or limit the implementation of non-vaccination agreements in the private sector, advocates for class actions have gained momentur, and private complaints against non-poaching agreements are rising from coast to coast. See z.B. Deslandes v. McDonald`s USA, LLC (N.D. III. 2017); Ion v. Pizza Hut, LLC (E.D. Tex.

2017); Frost v. LG Electronics, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018); Butler v. Jimmy John`s franchise, LLC, et al. (S.D. III. 2018); Yi v. SK Bakeries, LLC, et al. (W.D. Wash.

2018); Ogden v. Little Caesars Enterprises, Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich. 2018); Michel v. Restaurant Brands Int`l Inc., et al. (S.D. Fla. 2018); Avery v. Albany Shaker Donuts LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Newbauer v.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, Inc. (E.D. Vir.); In re: H-R Block Employee Antitrust Litigation (MDL – N.D. III.); In re: Railway Industry Employee No-Poach Antitrust Litigation (MDL – W.D. Pa). These lawsuits generally argue that the non-poaching clauses in the franchise agreements are contrary to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act as an illegal restriction on the employment trade. Many California employers use workers` non-invitation rules in their employment contracts.