The Federal Trade Commission just announced a sweeping proposed new rule, which if it makes it through the regulatory process, would significantly interfere with the employment relationships of an estimated 30 million Americans.
By current estimates, the rule would impact approximately one in five employees who are bound by terms of employer noncompete agreements. In the tech industry, it is estimated that one in three employees would be affected.
The proposed rule would ban any non-compete agreements that prevent workers from moving to another company or starting a business in the same field. It would apply only to employees, not owners/partners who have noncompetes tied to the sale of a business interest. It requires employers with noncompete clauses with paid staff and independent contractors, to rescind such agreements and the employers must tell current and former employees they have stopped enforcement.
The rule also targets other employment contract terms such as nondisclosure requirements, that are broadly written, and requires employees to repay training costs if they leave their employment too soon.
The notice of proposed rulemaking is out for public comment, which is the first step in the regulatory process.
This and other rule changes have been brewing since President Joe Biden called on the FTC to regulate noncompete contracts in a July 2021 executive order, citing the unfair use of any clauses that limit worker mobility. Labor unions strongly favor these measures. The U.S. Chamber of Congress strongly opposes it.
Claiming that employers’ use of non-competes to restrict workers’ mobility significantly suppresses worker’s wages, the FTC justifies this broad rule in part based on the FTC’s estimate that the rule “could” increase wages by $300 billion a year. In addition, the FTC believes noncompetes inhibit business innovation including stopping entrepreneurs from starting competing businesses.
The proposed rule does not give a private right of action to workers, only the FTC could go after violators.
The sole Republican FTC commissioner opposes it as beyond the rulemaking authority of the commission and because of the potential for unintended consequences. At least one study, in the financial services sector, showed the negative unintended consequences of suspending non-compete provisions, included higher fees and broker misconduct.
It is expected that this use of the FTC’s rarely used rule-making power will trigger legal challenges that could take years. In the meantime, Congress, which is supposed to set U.S. antitrust policy has clear authority to regulate the bullying business tactics which led to this rule. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v EPA, 597 U.S. ____ 2022 WL 2347278 (June 30, 2022), appears to call into question whether the FTC has authority to issue such a wide sweeping rule.
We will keep you advised of the path of this troubling rule and others that are threatened. The Chairman of the FTC stated that they see this rule as an important first step of imposing new market wide rules.
- Senior Attorney
Laura M. Dinon has been a member of Plunkett Cooney since 1979. After graduating from the Detroit College of Law in 1988, she began practicing in the Detroit office, concentrating in the area of professional liability.
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Minimum Wage
- Employment Agreement
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Unemployment Benefits
- Employment Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- At Will Employment
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Regulatory Law
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Justice
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Class Actions
- Civil Rights
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Michigan Appellate Court Overturns Decision on Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave Requirements
- Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Could Result in High Exposure Claims Against Employers
- FTC Proposes Ban on All Employer Noncompete Agreements
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses
- Contractual Limitations Periods STILL Alive and Well... on job Applications!
- Federal Appellate Court Takes Brakes Off COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Carousel