So yesterday I discussed some background related to anti-poaching and non-compete law. Today, I explain why the decision in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems provides a helpful analogue to franchising.
Facts
The case involves a no poach clause sought to be enforced by the current employer, Pittsburgh Logistic Systems (“Systems”), against four employees of Beemac Trucking, doing
Let’s review the status of activity restrictions in franchise agreements. Do they serve the purpose intended? Are they enforceable? Are they worth it? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems v. Beemac Trucking, 2021 WL 1676399 (PA 4/29/2021) applies an analysis usually used to evaluate covenants not to compete, and concludes that
Back at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a flurry of articles that maybe, just maybe, insurance would cover losses at businesses closed by the pandemic. I was skeptical. Now, as more cases roll in, it looks as if that skepticism was warranted. In fact, a recent case from my lonely neck of the
Franchisor obtains $2,064,735.75 arbitration award against failed area developer.
In an arbitration decision handed down by the American Arbitration Association, Rita’s Franchise Company, LLC obtained an award against a Washington state area developer for $2,064,735.75, consisting of damages of $738,892.27 to date of hearing, counsel fees of $1,012,565.92, and reimbursement of costs. The award
Hot on the heels of disappointing AB-5 news from California, a federal district court in Manhattan delivered a stinging rebuke to the Department of Labor (“DOL”), invalidating the control-based joint employment rule issued by the Department only 6 months ago.
The DOL Rule adopted a control-based test of joint employment for purposes of federal employment
In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the recent actions taken by Congress regarding the PPP program as well as the efforts by the Fed. In today’s post, we dig deeper into the challenge by state Attorneys General to the Department of Labor’s final joint employment rule moved forward in the Southern District of
In a BIG win for brand owners, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiff in a trademark infringement claim is not required to prove willfulness when seeking an award of a defendant’s profits under Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act.
The high court’s unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group Inc.
A Minnesota distributor of burners is not a franchisee of the manufacturer of the burners under the Minnesota Franchise Act (“MFA”), held a federal district court in Minnesota in an action in which the distributor attempted to enjoin the manufacturer from terminating the contract between the parties. In Louis DeGidio, Inc. v. Industrial Combustion,
I admit I was among the scores of franchise lawyers whose blood pressure skyrocketed with passage of California’s AB 5. If a Franchise Agreement establishes an independent contractor relationship between franchisor and franchisee, will the A-B-C test render the franchisor the employer of the franchisee? And if that’s the case, how is the franchisor
For over 40 years, Amzi Takiedine had been a 7-Eleven franchisee when he sued his franchisor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case, Azmi Takedine v. 7-Eleven, Inc. has two published decisions. The case presents an explanation of the state of the law in Pennsylvania regarding the elements