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
Yesterday, Washington’s Governor, Jay Inslee signed HB1450 [PDF] which targets the use of restrictive covenants in the State of Washington (the “Non-Compete Act”). The signing of the Non-Compete Act follows the recent settlement on March 18, 2019 of three cases filed by private plaintiffs challenging the no-poaching provisions in franchise agreements of Auntie Anne’s, Arby’s
A federal court in Colorado recently upheld a franchisor’s non-competition provision despite that state’s strong public policy against non-competes. The franchisor prevailed due to its thoughtful contract drafting and ability to effectively communicate the unique nature of franchising to the court.
In-home care franchisor Homewatch International, Inc. and its franchisee, Prominent Home Care, Inc., signed
If a franchisor waives the non-compete provision in its current franchise agreement, can it enforce a non-compete when the franchise agreement is renewed? According to a recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is yes, and franchisors should consider a few key lessons from the decision. Robinson, DVM v. Charter Practices
The interpretation and enforcement of non-competition covenants is always a hot button issue and varies from state to state. In Our Town v. Michael Rousseau and Jennifer Rousseau, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“Court”) granted a temporary restraining order filed by a franchisor, Our Town, against its former
Not long before the election, the Obama Administration issued a “call to action” statement in which it urged state governments to restrict many of the non-compete agreements that employers often impose on employees. The statement calls on state legislatures to adopt certain “best practices” for regulating employee non-compete agreements, including:
Congratulations! Your franchise system has opened multiple locations across the state, region or maybe even country. Now, how can you protect against a former franchisee competing with your other locations (besides the franchisee’s old location)?
In a recent case, AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. v. Romano
In a recent blog, we cautioned readers that an overprotective non-compete can result in no protection at all. In that case, Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, a franchisor could not enforce a non-compete clause despite its franchisee’s clear violation. 861 N.W.2d 437 (Neb. 2015).
A recent case, JH Inc. v. Cline, paints
“It is the purpose of this Act to . . . govern franchise agreements . . . to the full extent consistent with the Constitution of the United States . . . .”
The Fair Franchise Act of 2015 (the “Act”) makes a lot of promises: it will promote fair business relations, protect franchisees, and