Court handcuffs employees with non-compete agreements – again
A court ruling has reinstated non-compete agreements, blocking the FTC's planned ban. This decision emphasizes state or congressional regulation, leaving businesses and employees uncertain about future job mobility and earnings.
Read original article
A recent court ruling has reinstated non-compete agreements for employees, reversing a planned ban by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The ban, which was set to take effect on September 4, aimed to eliminate these contracts that restrict workers' job mobility and potentially limit their earnings. However, District Court Judge Ada Brown ruled that the FTC exceeded its authority and that such regulations should be established by Congress or individual states, not federal agencies. This decision reflects a broader conservative legal trend that limits the power of federal agencies. The FTC had estimated that the ban could increase workers' earnings by $400 billion over the next decade, affecting around 30 million workers. The ruling has left businesses and employees uncertain about the future of non-compete agreements, with many companies likely to continue enforcing them. The FTC is expected to appeal the decision, but its chances of success are uncertain given the current judicial climate. The ongoing debate highlights the imbalance of power between employers and employees, with non-compete agreements often seen as detrimental to workers' rights and job security.
- A court ruling has blocked the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements.
- The ruling emphasizes that Congress or states should regulate such contracts, not federal agencies.
- The FTC estimated the ban could boost workers' earnings by $400 billion over ten years.
- Businesses are likely to maintain non-compete agreements amid ongoing uncertainty.
- The decision reflects a conservative trend limiting federal agency powers in regulatory matters.
Related
Judge delays ban on noncompete agreements for employees
A federal judge delays noncompete ban for select employers, questioning FTC's authority. The ban aims to prevent job restrictions, but faces opposition from US Chamber of Commerce. Efforts ongoing to block ban nationwide.
Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes
A federal judge in Texas partially blocked the U.S. government's ban on noncompete agreements, citing plaintiffs' likelihood of success and public interest. The FTC's ban aimed to enhance job mobility and competition.
US judge throws out FTC's ban on non-compete agreements
A US District Judge overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, citing lack of authority, affecting 30 million workers. The Biden administration supports the FTC's efforts to limit such agreements.
Federal judge throws out U.S. ban on noncompetes
A Texas federal judge overturned the U.S. government's ban on noncompete agreements, stating the FTC exceeded its authority. The ruling allows businesses to maintain these agreements, impacting 30 million workers.
Federal judge in Texas strikes down FTC's ban on noncompete agreements
A Texas federal judge has blocked the FTC's ban on noncompete agreements, ruling the agency lacks authority. The FTC plans to appeal, claiming the ban is essential for fair competition.
- Many commenters question the fairness and rationale behind non-compete agreements, suggesting they primarily benefit employers at the expense of employees.
- There is a call for more stringent regulations, with comparisons to practices in Europe where non-competes require compensation.
- Some express skepticism about the integrity of the judiciary, particularly regarding judges in Texas and their influence on corporate law.
- Several commenters emphasize the need for legislative action rather than regulatory overreach by federal agencies like the FTC.
- Humor and sarcasm are used to critique the complexity of the legal language surrounding the ruling and its implications.
21 commentsBack to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you.
Is that decision fair? You already went through the court system (or otherwise paid it off (implicitly, often explicitly, pleading guilty)), a judge took the time to judge your misdeeds, and you had some penalty applied, perhaps the max allowed by the law. Now though, some part of the executive branch wants to ignore any judicial action and assert their opinions.
Even before this ludicrous supreme court case, that was a thing that happened. A whole office in Minnesota is dedicated to extra-judicial traffic rulings above and beyond what the judge thought was reasonable.
I think it's wrong. Empower somebody like the FAA to make fast decisions when there are actually lives at stake, but everything else which could reasonably be judged one way or the other should go through somebody capable of judging it (maybe...a judge). Even FAA rulings probably ought to be vetted once they're less time sensitive.
It's a bit hyperbolic to be sure, but one does wonder how far we are from going full circle here..
The Judge says they can't enforce their new ban.
But does that stop them from trying to stop non-competes using prior law? For example the Sherman Act can cover non-competes. If the FTC started suing hair salons and fast food restaurants under that it might cause enough problems for those businesses that they'd stop using such agreements.
Why is that 95% of the times I see something get stopped or overturned, it is from a court / judge in Texas?
Even then, it wouldn’t hold in intrastate cases since the Commerce clause doesn’t provide for that.
Related
Judge delays ban on noncompete agreements for employees
A federal judge delays noncompete ban for select employers, questioning FTC's authority. The ban aims to prevent job restrictions, but faces opposition from US Chamber of Commerce. Efforts ongoing to block ban nationwide.
Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes
A federal judge in Texas partially blocked the U.S. government's ban on noncompete agreements, citing plaintiffs' likelihood of success and public interest. The FTC's ban aimed to enhance job mobility and competition.
US judge throws out FTC's ban on non-compete agreements
A US District Judge overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, citing lack of authority, affecting 30 million workers. The Biden administration supports the FTC's efforts to limit such agreements.
Federal judge throws out U.S. ban on noncompetes
A Texas federal judge overturned the U.S. government's ban on noncompete agreements, stating the FTC exceeded its authority. The ruling allows businesses to maintain these agreements, impacting 30 million workers.
Federal judge in Texas strikes down FTC's ban on noncompete agreements
A Texas federal judge has blocked the FTC's ban on noncompete agreements, ruling the agency lacks authority. The FTC plans to appeal, claiming the ban is essential for fair competition.