NLRB judge declares non-compete clause is an unfair labor practice

https://www.nlrbedge.com/p/in-first-case-of-its-kind-nlrb-judge

by lalaland1125 • 2 years ago

374 199 2 years ago

BeefySwain• 2 years ago

Salting is protected activity, lying about your employment history to salt is also protected activity, and firing someone for salting is an unfair labor practice.

Huh... TIL

InvaderFizz• 2 years ago

That stuck out at me too.

So, all you have to do to completely lie on your resume and keep employed, is pretend to be union organizing?

ralferoo2• 2 years ago

I'd imagine it'd go to court and the union would have to testify that this is the case, and also have documentary evidence to back it up.

p_l• 2 years ago

Inventing qualifications is probably still not legal.

Now, not mentioning a job in the past, or some details of it, are a different case.

tzs2• 2 years ago

No.

You can lie about union organizing because an employer is not allowed to use whether or not you are a union organizer when making hiring or firing decisions.

If you lie about something that the employer is allowed to use in making those decisions they can fire you.

Volundr• 2 years ago

So, all you have to do to completely lie on your resume and keep employed, is pretend to be union organizing?

You can lie about your union involvement. You can't make up qualifications you don't have.

kingkawn2• 2 years ago

As it should be

jpambrun2• 2 years ago

Care to elaborate? I can't think of any argument for this position.

CoastalCoder• 2 years ago

I'm curious what the logic is to justify lying about employment history in order to salt a union.

My understanding was that you couldn't be penalized for organizing a union per se, but that didn't mean you couldn't be fired for other non-unionization-related reasons.

It seems like this is going a step further: things that could get someone fired in completely union-unrelated situations, are actually protected if done in service of unionization?

If so, where's the line? Can an organizer simply not show up for work and still collect a paycheck? Can they harangue the business' customers because their job requires access to the company's customer list?

alpinisme• 2 years ago

Consider the alternative where employers can fire you for lying about your employment history. Once you’ve done some union organizing, you’d be potentially unhireable.

ETA: Here's the relevant part of the judicial decision in this case:

None of these employees [who were fired for lying and used to claim precedent in this case] are an appropriate comparator for McClure, who was never accused of stealing, violating traffic laws, or other criminal conduct. And, even if Respondent could show that the other employees were fired just for lying, and not for the underlying serious misconduct, Respondent could not use that to justify firing McClure because they were all accused of lying about conduct that Respondent could lawfully consider in hiring or firing them. In contrast, McClure lied about his history of working for union employers. Because Respondent could not refuse to hire McClure because of his union background, his lie about working for Deem can’t be used to justify firing him.

Xylakant2• 2 years ago

In Germany, there are certain kinds of questions that are not permissible on an employment questionnaire, for example asking whether a candidate is pregnant or plans on having children, union affiliation, etc. However, these questions are often included in the questionnaire and not answering them would provide sufficient signal to the employer and the only remedy would be to sue the employer. So it's explictly permitted to lie in the answer, rendering the questions useless.

I expect a similar line of reasoning applying to this case: The question is about a protected, legal activity which is nonetheless undesirable for certain employers. Asking the question and requiring a truthful answer would undermine the protected, legal activity. Hence an effective remedy is explicitly allowing to lie in the response.

dcre• 2 years ago

Here’s a case where calling the boss names is protected converted activity.

https://www.nlrbedge.com/p/wall-street-journal-is-mad-at-wel...

ralferoo2• 2 years ago

I'm curious what the logic is to justify lying about employment history in order to salt a union.

Being from outside the US, I'd never heard this term before, and actually in my country it's rare that you join a company and aren't given all the documentation by HR about what unions you can join on the first day.

But anyway, when I googled this term, from the wikipedia article:

The tactic is often discussed in the United States because under US law unions may be prohibited from talking with workers in the workplace and salting is one of the few legal strategies that allow union organizers to talk with workers.

It'd seem them that at least one reason why they might explicitly protect the right for union members to lie about their employment history when trying to join a company for the explicit reason of salting is that they would also be / have been an employee of a union, and disclosing that could well get them deselected from consideration for the role.

Presumably the company will still be responsible for their own due diligence in checking that the potential hire had all the necessary qualifications to legally carry out the work, and might well discover the lie in that process. Presumably they could then also terminate the employee for that reason at that point because they couldn't actually legally carry out the job duties, but equally I'd imagine if they uncovered a lie which could be shown (presumably in court) to be for the purpose of salting, but they were otherwise legally able to perform the work, then the company couldn't fire them.

jprete• 2 years ago

IANAL, but as far as I know, the line is "intent", and courts of law are empowered to infer intent from actions.

things that could get someone fired in completely union-unrelated situations, are actually protected if done in service of unionization?

If you preferentially fire union organizers and preferentially ignore the infractions of non-union-members, then yes.

scrapcode2• 2 years ago

That seems absolutely ridiculous to me... what am I missing? I can lie about my work experience in order to infiltrate a business and form a union?

Drakim• 2 years ago

Maybe it's specifically in the context of unions and nothing else?

If you lie about your work experience, it turns out you can't program Rust, then you can get fired for that.

But if you lie about never having been part of a union before, and it turns out you have been part of a union before, then you can't get fired for that.

andylynch• 2 years ago

According to the ruling, yes, given the public interest as stated, in protecting the right to organise.

This is broadly similar in principle to laws like those in many places allowing one to not disclose spent criminal convictions.

spamizbad2• 2 years ago

The context here is salting so it would likely be omitting prior employment or education/training. I personally think this is completely reasonable in all cases.

Non-salting example: over a decade ago I omitted an entire year of professional experience as a PHP developer when trying to get hired as a Python engineer, because I didn’t want to get pigeon-holed as “PHP dev who can maintain our crummy legacy PHP codebase nobody wants to touch”.

Anyway it would be extremely problematic if employers were entitled to full and complete honesty from applicants but had no equivalent obligations from their side. If businesses had the choice they’d pick the status quo over mutual transparency.

nohuck13• 2 years ago

If lying about you employment history is a protected activity, then if a pre-employment background check catches you lying about your employment history, and you say "no I am salting," that also is protection from having your offer rescinded?

cess112• 2 years ago

In court it would be tested whether your deceit is actually relevant to the salting. Faking an entire resume to get into a place where you can't do the work isn't likely to fly, hiding your time working for a union by claiming you did first line customer support might.

ketzu• 2 years ago

I assume quite a few people think of one way of "lying" about employment history, that they have very strong feelings about how it should be handled.

* Omitting (or denying) that you have done a certain activity (eg., union founding, working with PHP, that only-2-month job because it sucked).

* Claiming (or adding) jobs or degrees that you have not worked at or earned, on your CV (e.g., claiming to have worked for microsoft for 4 years when you didn't).

To me the first one seems clearly okay, but the second one not so much.

n2d4• 2 years ago

Personally, I think "denying" is also bad, while "omitting" is fine.

Instead, I think it's more reasonable to have exceptions for certain protected activities, such as salting. It's in the same category as sexual orientation for me; employers should not be allowed to ask or make decisions based on it, so if you're asked as an employee, you shouldn't have any obligation to tell the truth.

Quanttek• 2 years ago

The idea is pretty easy: If an employer could simply ask you about past union activity (or activity indicating it, such as certain training) and then fire you for lying about your employment history when you omit it, then the protection for unions is effectively neutralized.

Unlike what other commentators imply, this judgment doesn't legitimize just inventing degrees or qualifications. It's closer to omitting that 2-month job that didn't work out

ndriscoll• 2 years ago

McClure applied as a covert organizer, or salt. He gave Respondent a resume that falsely claimed that he worked at a non-union company called Deem from 2018 to the time of his application... McClure testified that he believed claiming to work for a non-union employer would increase his chances of being hired, as people in the HVAC industry would generally recognize WMI and Habel as union shops and Deem as non-union.

AndrewKemendo• 2 years ago

We have had decades of worker suppression that lead people to think that it’s illegal to collectivize against your employer and it’s just not the case

hn_throwaway_99• 2 years ago

I don't think that's what people were surprised about. Just speaking for myself, I was originally surprised by the statement "lying about your employment history to salt is also protected activity". After all, it's seems to make perfect sense that I can be fired for lying on my resume.

The bit that I didn't understand, and that some of the comments here cleared up, is that only lying about the employment pieces that specifically relate to past work as a union organizer are the things that are protected activity.

jmyeet2• 2 years ago

Here's an exercise for you.

Take almost any court case that makes it to the Supreme Court or Federal government action, regardless of the court's makeup, or what party controls the White house or Congress, and ask yourself this question:

What is the pro-business or pro-government outcome of this case or legislation?

Then see how the court ruled or the executive and legislature acted. You will find the majority of the time that the pro-business or pro-government (particularly pro-police) outcome matches what actually happens.

singron• 2 years ago

This is not a valid interpretation of this case. The judge concluded that the employer fired the employee in retaliation for union activity. The company claimed they fired him for lying on his resume, but they couldn't prove that was the reason (which is their burden to prove), and it wasn't consistent with prior company behavior. E.g. they had a recorded conversation about how they could figure out a way to not hire a union applicant, and they had never fired anyone for a similar infraction before.

Importantly, the only detail on the resume that was false was the name of the prior employer. They had accrued the same experience at a union employer instead. This case doesn't allow you to arbitrarily lie on your resume in order to salt, and you can still fire someone for lying if you can reasonably prove that.

dataflow2• 2 years ago

How much authority/jurisdiction does this judge/ruling have? It seems like the kind of thing that might easily get appealed and lost.

bitwize• 2 years ago

The conservative SCOTUS has a vendetta against the administrative state. The overturn of the bump stock ban is just the beginning: they're going after Chevron deference. This, combined with conservative justices tending to favor contract law over consumer/employee protection, means that any federal ban on noncompetes is likely to be overturned absent a statute from Congress.

lolinder4• 2 years ago

the administrative state. The overturn of the bump stock ban is just the beginning

It's not even sort of the beginning. The conservative stance on the role of the Supreme Court has been pretty clear for a long time and this court has been ruling that way for a few years now.

Their theory is that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets. The precedent that they've overturned has consistently been in line with this logic: they've said over and over again that if America wants a law then Congress should create it, rather than relying on executive rulemaking that gets overturned every time an administration changes or on unelected judges legislating from the bench.

Whether or not you agree with them on specific issues, I think we can all agree that the current status quo where worker rights take dramatic swings every time a new party takes control of the presidency is a ridiculous situation that needs to be fixed. I want a nation of laws, not a nation of administrative rules that have a 4-year shelf life.

granzymes• 2 years ago

This is a ruling from an Administrative Law Judge, which basically functions as a strong recommendation for how the National Labor Relations Board should decide a particular case. ALJs are Article II “in house” judges that specialize in the law of one particular administrative agency. They don’t have Constitutional life tenure protections and mostly do claims processing work for the Social Security Administration.

The next step in this case is for a 3-member panel of the NLRB (a 5 member board appointed by the President, currently with 4 members) to decide whether to accept the proposed ruling of the ALJ or to substitute their own opinion of how the case should come out.

Orders of the NLRB are not self-executing, so parties can appeal an adverse judgement to the Circuit of Appeals of their choice and the NLRB can cross-petition for enforcement of their decision. The Federal courts have final say over questions of law like “are non competes a violation of labor law”.

The entire process takes several years to play out.

dataflow2• 2 years ago

That's exactly what I was wondering, thank you!

baryphonic• 2 years ago

Not to be too pedantic, but ALJs are technically Article I judges (or more precisely judges over Article I tribunals). The Constitution lists two different sources of judicial power, the first in Article I section 8 and the second in Article III. Article III courts have judges with life tenure, protection of salaries and are subject to review only by other Article III appeals courts including the Supreme Court. Article I courts have judges with fixed terms of office, and Congress can cut their salaries. All Article I courts are subject to review by Article III courts.

There's an open controversy about how much deference the Article I courts in administrative agencies are owed by Article III courts, arising mostly from Chevron v NRDC. That decision requires Article III courts to defer to Article I courts' interpretations of their statutes and even their administrative rules except in extreme circumstances. Several justices on the Supreme Court find Chevron deference problematic, but it currently is the law of the land.

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

There's been moves by the FTC to ban non-competes as well.

I work in financial services so am often covered by these clauses. Firstly, it seems insane that unpaid non-competes are legal at all, to start with. Also, seeing them applied to very junior level and even hourly paid roles is overly onerous.

While my industry pays your base salary during your "garden leave" even this can be misleading in more senior roles where 50% or more of your compensation is bonus, plus some firms cut your healthcare coverage on resignation as well. Some companies have also extended the terms as long as 18 months or longer.

Further, I have been under non-solicitations with terms as long as 5 years which is frankly insane.

So all that is to say the free market is not exactly working here, and seeing some legal guardrails put in place would be good - pay required, terms limited, benefits defined, etc.

jfengel• 2 years ago

TIL "garden leave", a period of time when you are mandated to be out of work. Thanks.

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

It's pretty good for say, 3-6 months.

Long enough to reset, not worry too much about health coverage, and if timed right.. not miss out on a bonus cycle. It's also short enough that you can interview and get a job offer from a company willing to wait for you. Often you can negotiate a signing bonus at the new shop to make up for compensation you may lose due to deferral or bonus cycle.

The firms trying to force 18 month terms are also some of the highest turnover shops. Arguably you'd need to demand a 50-75% bump to take the role since on the way out the door you are going to miss out on 1-2 bonus cycles. The term is so long you likely need to quit before finding a new job too, and then kick off interviewing in the last 6 months.

pkilgore• 2 years ago

Importantly compared to almost all non-competes: Garden Leave implies you are being paid to not work.

anon2912• 2 years ago

Firstly, it seems insane that unpaid non-competes are legal at all, to start with. Also, seeing them applied to very junior level and even hourly paid roles is overly onerous.

They're not. I mean they're legal in that you can write one and ask someone to sign it. But good luck getting it enforced!

I went to a college where people typically went on to finance roles and strategy consulting. I myself worked at Bain for a few months before deciding it was not for me.

Our corporate law professor told us the same thing. She was head general counsel at an aerospace company. She said ignore all non-competes and don't accept payment for them.

If there's no payment in a contract, there's no consideration. A non-compete has to be signed upon resignation. So just don't take the resignation bonus.

Moreover, it doesn't really matter because no one is going to put someone on the government dole in order to enforce a non-compete. It's safe to ignore in almost all circumstances. Why would a state possibly take on yet another unemployment figure in order to protect a private company's interest? They want the tax money.

Non-solicitation is different.

IANAL, but take that as you will. I've followed this advice religiously and nothing happens. Most companies will be weirded out when you don't take the resignation bonus, but as long as no money changes hands, they have no power over you.

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

Fair. Something that is common practice but not going to hold up in court are uhh quasi-legal.

A problem is that if you are moving within an industry that enforces non-competes they all generally respect each others for fear of invalidating their own. They also tend to know the terms of each others contracts as well so you can't exactly bluff your way through.

So your new prospective employer will not do anything that is seen as soliciting you to break the prior contract.

Also at the low end it works especially well because you won't take the risk of court / having to hire a lawyer.

ghaff8• 2 years ago

One of the issues is that many small firms are just going to pass if you have a non-compete. I guess you can lie and just say you don't but that's probably not a great way to start a new employment relationship. I worked for a very small firm and someone having a non-compete was just a hard pass from our COO. Just too much risk.

tzs2• 2 years ago

That is true now due to the FTC ban on non-competes, but it was not true before that. The enforceability varied widely from state to state. Here's a table showing how it was in 2016 [1]. My guess is that your corporate law professor was talking about enforceability in the specific state you were in.

Also, most I've seen were required to be signed when employment began, not when employment ended.

[1] https://beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart-2/

ClumsyPilot• 2 years ago

What does free market mean, in this particular case, even philosophically?

Non-compete, as in preventing people from selling their labour, a violation of free market? Or is stopping people from agreeing to non-competes, a violation of free market?

Is allowing a man to sell himself into slavery free market, or is banning such practice something that helps to ensure the market stays free?

The more American idea of a free market is a kind of natural law of the jungle, where the strongest wins.

The more European idea of free market is that it can only exist with rigorous protections and watchful eye of a government

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

What makes them anti-free-market in my mind is.. monopsony.

Non-competes are a feature of monopsony because in a given industry all the buyers of labor enforce them. This is a concept related to monopoly, but on the demand rather than supply side. Even bad old USA takes (an increasing) hard line on monopolies.

wdreynolds1• 2 years ago

There is nothing in this ruling that is new as it relates to non-competes or non-solicitation. Overly broad non-compete’s and non-solicitation clauses have always been unenforceable.

They must be specific and unambiguous.

downrightmike• 2 years ago

I had an employer only offer severance if I signed a new non compete for FIVE years and to get around the overly broad language they inserted clauses on every single thing that stated that there was no way around the non compete even though the state would find it illegal. My state has precedent that if the non compete doesn't allow a person to earn a living, they throw it out and if one clause does that, the whole thing is in valid. So the employer wrote their new non compete to completely try to circumvent it. They also paid shit, so severance wasn't worth it.

bushbaba• 2 years ago

While great, it's a huge blow to California who historically benefited from the innovations of non-competes being non-enforceable.

bbarn• 2 years ago

Why exactly?

ghaff8• 2 years ago

I'm very opposed to non-competes except in specific scenarios like selling a business (and non-solicitation agreements often make sense). However, I'm also very skeptical of the argument that CA's success in certain industries is remotely the result of unenforceable non-competes.

There often seems to be an assumption that non-competes are the norm everywhere else and, while they certainly exist (and some firms/industries are notorious for enforcing them) that just isn't the case anything like universally in my experience.

phyzome• 2 years ago

Or it's exactly the opposite, depending on how mobile you think companies are.

gigatexal• 2 years ago

Nice. Here’s hoping the extra freedom causes wages to rise and employers work to keep employees with benefits instead of handcuffs.

jmyeet2• 2 years ago

When you learn about enclosures [1] you cannot stop seeing them everywhere. The entirety of intellectual property is just an enclosure. Rather than promoting innovation it just promotes rent-seeking [2] or intermediation.

Noncompetes fit this bill. They've been weaponized by private equity to medical practices. A PE firm will come along and buy up all the medical practices in an area. It's hard to resist that large buyout offer. The staff will then be put on noncompetes that essentially prevent them from practising in their area at all if they leave.

This problem has gotten so bad that even places like Florida are seeking to ban medical noncompetes [3].

If you've wondered why your vet bills have gotten so large, well it's the same playbook [4].

Restraint on trade (such as noncopetes) is used to suppress wages and jack up prices for absolutely nobody's benefit other than the PE fund's investors. Absolutely no value is being created here so I'm glad to see the NLRB, the FTC and yes, even Florida take action here.

I've previously thought that noncompetes may make sense in very limited circumstances and, if so, companies should have to pay through the nose. Example: when you quit the company has a one-time option to exercise that noncompete. If they do, they have to pay you out for the entire term. That payout? Take your highest earning year in the last 10 years. Double it. That's how much you have to be paid per year. Then we'll see how badly companies really need noncompetes.

Even then I think I'd be just as happy if they were entirely illegal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[3] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/flori...

[4] https://stateline.org/2024/03/29/vets-fret-as-private-equity...

giantg219• 2 years ago

That non-solicitation clause is interesting. My company forbids managers from providing references for employees. I wonder if that could also be considered an unfair labor practice since it negatively affect your ability to get a different job.

Honestly, I'm starting to see that my company is doing a lot of shady employment things. I guess most companies do.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

The reason this is done is that litigious ex-employees might try and sue for defamation. Even if the lawsuit is scurrilous, it will cost a company $20-30K to defend itself, so many companies have decided it’s not worth the risk.

giantg219• 2 years ago

I can see why HR won't provide performance references. But I'm talking about if I'm a star employee and want to leave, I ask my boss if they'll write me a recommendation letter or if I can list them as a positive reference on my apps, they aren't allowed to by the company and may even get fired for it.

segmondy• 2 years ago

Can you provide an example article or case law when this happened?

lowbloodsugar• 2 years ago

Again, that sounds like a good reason, but it’s not the reason, and it would be easy to solve. The reason is wage suppression.

ungreased06752• 2 years ago

I’m curious if your company asks for references when hiring people? I’d guess they do, which makes the policy unethical and hypocritical.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

—

SoftTalker4• 2 years ago

Mostly no, because almost no employer will provide them.

workingdog• 2 years ago

There's always a reference.

It doesn't have to be the boss; it could be a co-worker. Generally written, it is hard to get, but almost always available with a phone call after hours.

Asking the person, "Would you rehire this person?" or "Would you like to work with this person?" has a 95% answer rate and says everything.

If the prospect can't connect you with a phone call to one of their co-workers, that tells us what we need to know.

ivan_gammel3• 2 years ago

It should be unfair labor practice. Also, what does it achieve? It is not going to increase retention significantly, on the contrary, they will likely get lower eNPS.

By the way in Germany employers are legally obliged to provide a reference (Arbeitszeugnis). Most of them that I have seen were too positive and sometimes obviously exaggerated.

giantg219• 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't think it should be required, but I think policies banning managers from writing letters are also wrong.

vessenes• 2 years ago

There’s a complex balance of power in the US (and Germany) around these. A common reason companies ban references is to protect the company (and occasionally employee <- manager) from lawsuits if the reference is negative.

In Germany this has turned into a legal climate where only positive reviews are granted, creating a set of tiered shaded meanings inside positive reviews that stand in for ‘unacceptable’ to ‘brilliant’.

At any rate, changing one part of the system, e.g. forcing referrals as in Germany would no doubt change other ways the system works in the US as well.

simonbarker872• 2 years ago

Of course it is. Non-competes are unenforceable in the UK as you can’t stop someone earning a living and if their skill or knowledge is that specific or valuable that they may not be able to get a job anywhere not covered in the non-compete.

Want someone to not work for a competitor until their secret knowledge is out of date? Pay them gardening leave.

quietbritishjim• 2 years ago

The UK government was due to introduce legislation ("when parliamentary time allows", which apparently it didn't) to limit non-complete clauses in employment contracts to a maximum of 3 months. That seems like implicit recognition that non-complete clauses longer than 3 months are currently valid.

simonbarker872• 2 years ago

Can't speak to that explicitly but the advice I was given by 2 solicitors on the topic was "they're not enforceable and won't stand up in court, they can't stop you earning a living with your skills"

KennyBlanken• 2 years ago

No, it implies that's what legislators negotiated between different factions, or between legislators and lobbyists, or were outright bribed by lobbyists to go with.

Ie, they wanted 1 month, but lobbyists wanted 6 months, legislators pushed back, and everyone compromised at 3.

mannyv• 2 years ago

The Supremes have been on a tear vs administrative judges, so expect this to get swatted down. There are other agencies in the non-compete mix that are better suited to make these sorts of policy decisions. This court would rather have agencies and politicians do their jobs when it comes to this stuff.

red_admiral• 2 years ago

This sounds reasonable. If you train as a plumber, work for ACME Plumbing Inc. and then leave, being told you can't work anywhere else in your trade for 24 months means you should do what exactly - become an uber driver for a couple of years?

paulus_magnus2• 2 years ago

No need to ban it. Just automaticly award full salary for 2x the noncompete period they put in your contract, payable in full a week after contract termination.

callalex• 2 years ago

Suddenly your salary is $1/yr and your bonus is $1M/yr. (This really happens in the USA financial sector.)

AgentOrange1234• 2 years ago

Employees won’t tolerate that due to not being able to get mortgages? Our megacorp recently upped base salaries due to this.

blackeyeblitzar• 2 years ago

I agree that non competes are unfair but also think the NLRB has too much power and is effectively legislating.

nabla9• 2 years ago

If non-compete is must, you can always make garden leave contract.

Employee must stay away from work during the notice period, while still remaining on the payroll. 6 or 12 month garden leave is common in financial sector.

WalterBright5• 2 years ago

I'm curious if the NLRB has ever ruled in favor of business.

ok_dad3• 2 years ago

You could probably look that up. Instead you made a stupid comment meant to insinuate something sinister.

Edit: Here ya go Walter, I guess your compiler skills are better than your google skills. Several cases here were in favor of the business.

https://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/decisions/notable-board...

WalterBright5• 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. But I'm not going to spend all day reading those decisions (the language is so legalese it's hard to parse what they're talking about). I'll just say that every time the NLRB is in the news, I've never read of a case where they ruled for the business.

If you want to point to a decision in particular, I'll take a look at it.

you made a stupid comment meant to insinuate something sinister

It's a fair question.

Kiboneu2• 2 years ago

You could read the comment guidelines. Instead you made an unnecessarily insulting comment with no real substance.

Since you clearly have not bothered to read them, the guidelines are at the bottom of the site, or maybe try googling it.

WalterBright5• 2 years ago

Several cases here were in favor of the business.

All you needed to do was cite one. Please do.

ein0p• 2 years ago

If it goes like this the Supreme Court might declare water to be wet, much to the horror of corporate America. Of course it’s unfair to limit one’s employment options without just compensation for it.

NLRB judge declares non-compete clause is an unfair labor practice

Related Stories