Ryan Kunkel is a trial lawyer who litigates employment-related disputes in federal and state court and private arbitration, and counsels employers to help mitigate risk and prevent disputes from reaching litigation in the first place. Ryan specializes in pursuing and defending cases involving unfair competition, such as employee non-competition, non-solicitation, and trade secret obligations, especially in the financial and manufacturing industries. His practice also includes litigating before the National Labor Relations Board, arbitrating labor grievances, and helping management navigate and resolve complex labor disputes, including organizing drives and work stoppages.

Click here for Ryan Kunkel’s full bio.
Continue Reading Ryan Kunkel

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently stated that it will not enforce an employee-friendly independent contractor rule implemented by the Biden administration in 2024 (“Biden Rule”). The Biden Rule made it more difficult for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. In contrast, the DOL’s announced approach will renew focus on a factor that tends to favor independent contractor status – the worker’s “degree of independent business organization and operation.”  The Biden Rule ignored this factor, which stemmed from 2008 DOL guidance.

What is the new state of play?

The Trump DOL indicated it will return to the following factors in enforcement actions:

  1.  The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal’s business.
  2. The permanency of the relationship.
  3. The amount of the alleged contractor’s investment in facilities and equipment.
  4. The nature and degree of control by the principal.
  5. The alleged contractor’s opportunities for profit and loss.
  6. The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.
  7. The degree of independent business organization and operation.

These factors will guide the DOL in conducting audits or pursuing enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  However, importantly, the Biden Rule remains in effect for purposes of “private litigation.”  That means that if a worker files a lawsuit claiming they were misclassified as an independent contractor, the worker can rely on the Biden Rule as persuasive guidance to support their claim.

What this means for businesses

The DOL’s shift should be welcome news to businesses using independent contractors.  It signals a reprieve from misclassification enforcement actions and may lead to a formal rule that businesses can rely on for future litigation.  In the meantime, however, the Biden Rule remains in effect for private litigation, and businesses must still comply with state and local law, which may be more employee-friendly (especially in jurisdictions like Washington, Oregon and California).  Now is a good time to review how workers are classified and to consult your legal counsel for additional guidance.

In the most recent indication of what employers can expect from the National Labor Relations Board under President Trump’s second term, the acting General Counsel for the Board, William Cowen, recently rescinded a series of memoranda issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, that employers regarded as overprotective of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.  While the memos carried no legal weight, they were a guiding force for Regional Offices and an indication of how the Board may rule on significant issues, such as expanding remedies available to prevailing unions and cracking down on non-competition and severance agreements. 

The acting General Counsel’s move away from those priorities is likely not the last time that Trump’s NLRB reverses course from the Biden Board.  Rather, employers can expect that the next few years will see a reversal of Biden Board decisions that watered down management rights, made it harder to enforce workplace rules, and made it more difficult to decertify unions that no longer enjoyed employee support, among other employee-friendly decisions.  (Sophisticated readers know that a pendulum shift is common for the Board after the presidency changes political parties.)

Those decisions, however, will have to wait until President Trump appoints and the Senate confirms new Board members. After President Trump dismissed sitting Board member Gwynne Wilcox (appointed by President Biden), the Board currently has only two sitting members and is thus without a quorum, prohibiting it from deciding new cases.  While the NLRB announced on February 1 that Field Offices will “continue their normal operations of processing unfair labor practice cases and representation cases,” those operations will no longer focus on the employee-friendly priorities advanced by former General Counsel Abruzzo. 

Since 2019, employers have relied heavily on the management rights clauses in collective bargaining agreements to make unilateral workplace changes involving operational decisions.  They did so with the protection of the “contract coverage” standard established by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) in the 2019 case MV Transportation Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66, where the plain language of a collective bargaining agreement – including management rights clauses – determined whether unilateral changes were permitted.  However, that decision, issued by a Republican-majority in President-elect Trump’s first term, was recently overturned by the Biden Board in Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024).  Now, employers must show a “clear and unmistakable” waiver to bargain the specific change at issue. 

“Clear and unmistakable” can be a difficult burden to meet. It often requires showing the parties explicitly discussed the potential change during bargaining and the union agreed to waive its right to bargain it.  In Endurance Environmental Solutions, the employer installed security cameras in its trucks to monitor drivers without first bargaining with the union, believing the change was covered by the management rights clause that provided it could make unilateral changes to equipment.  The Board ruled that there was no “clear and unmistakable” waiver by the union, and the unilateral change was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

This decision has major implications for employers of unionized workforces because they can no longer rely on broadly worded management rights clauses to make unilateral changes. The decision underscores the importance of collective bargaining and obtaining union consent for certain workplace changes.

Change may be near

Employers may not be burdened with this standard for long.  The Biden Board has been led by three Democratic appointed – and union-friendly – members.  However, one of those appointees, NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran, recently lost a key procedural vote in the United States Senate to approve her to serve a second term, that would have lasted until 2026.  Now, McFerran is likely to lose her seat on the Board on December 16, 2024.  That would leave the Board with two Democratic appointed members, one Republican appointee, and two vacancies.  President-elect Trump will likely appoint two new employer-friendly members to fill those vacancies immediately upon taking office in January 2025.  This shift could lead to a reversal of the Endurance “clear and unmistakable” standard and other recent pro-union decisions, potentially reinstating more employer-friendly standards similar to those seen during the previous Trump administration.  While this pendulum shift is typical when the presidency changes parties, the swing will likely come sooner this time with President-elect Trump filling two vacancies immediately upon taking office.

This evolving landscape highlights the need for employers to stay informed and consult with labor law experts to navigate these changes effectively.

The recent federal court ruling that struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule banning non-compete agreements has given employers some relief, but it doesn’t mean non-competes are no longer under scrutiny. While the ruling prevents the FTC’s proposed ban from taking effect, state legislatures across the country have been tightening restrictions or imposing outright bans on non-compete agreements over the past few years. To avoid potential legal pitfalls, employers need to stay up-to-date on these evolving state laws.

We’ve prepared a full rundown of these changes, their implications, and what they mean for your business here.

On Tuesday, August 20, a federal judge in Texas shot down the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning noncompete agreements (“the Rule”) that was set to take effect September 4. This means that the FTC cannot enforce the Rule. As a result, enforceable non-competes currently in place remain enforceable, and businesses and workers are free to enter into new non-competes (subject to applicable state law restrictions). 

Earlier this summer, on June 3, the Court previewed its conclusion that the Rule was unlawful because the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in implementing the Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. But employers have been anxiously awaiting Tuesday’s ruling on the merits, uncertain about the future of non-competes.

On Tuesday, the Court affirmed its decision that the Rule is unlawful. The Court specifically held the FTC lacked the authority to create substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition. The Court emphasized that agencies like the FTC are merely “creatures of Congress” and have “no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon [them].” In this situation, Congress did not empower the FTC to act to ban noncompetition agreements nationwide.

The Court also held that the FTC failed to justify the Rule’s nearly universal breadth. If it had gone into effect, the Rule would have retroactively invalidated over 30 million employment contracts and preempted the laws of 46 states.  The Court described the Rule as “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation” because it imposed “a one-size-fits-all approach with no end date” and because the FTC failed to consider less disruptive alternatives. The Court ultimately found that the FTC’s lack of evidence as to why it chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, rendered the Rule arbitrary and capricious.  As a result, the Court found that the Rule was unlawful.

The FTC could appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  However, it is possible—if not likely—that the Fifth Circuit would agree with the Texas court and affirm the decision, as would the Supreme Court, if the FTC ever pursued the case to the nation’s highest court.

Even if the FTC abandons its effort to ban non-competes on a national level, states around the country will continue the assault.  Several states have recently passed laws banning or restricting the use of non-competes, and others are likely to follow. Congress could get involved as well. A separate article discussing the fate of non-compete agreements is forthcoming. Stay tuned. But for now, rest assured that non-competition agreements are still permitted by federal law.

Related Post:

Navigating the Changing Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements: What Employers Need to Know (8/30/2024).

The recent federal court ruling that struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule banning non-compete agreements has given employers some relief, but it doesn’t mean non-competes are no longer under scrutiny. While the ruling prevents the FTC’s proposed ban from taking effect, state legislatures across the country have been tightening restrictions or imposing outright bans on non-compete agreements over the past few years. To avoid potential legal pitfalls, employers need to stay up-to-date on these evolving state laws.

We’ve prepared a full rundown of these changes, their implications, and what they mean for your business.

Two administrative agencies within the federal government have been busy lately publishing new rules that govern important aspects of employers’ relationships with their employees.  Read more below for further updates.

DOL Rolls Out Final Rule Increasing Minimum Salary For Exempt Employees

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has rolled out its long-awaited update to the minimum salary requirements for employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime and minimum wage requirements under the so-called “white collar” exemptions (administrative employees, executive employees, professional employees, and computer employees).  Here is what you need to know about what the new rule requires:

  1. Assuming there are no successful legal challenges (see below), the new rule will go into effect on July 1, 2024, and will increase the required minimum salary to $844 per week ($43,888 per year).  This figure is pegged to the standard salary level at the 20th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried employees in the southeastern portion of the United States.  (Per an analysis conducted by the DOL, employees in the Southeast earn less than employees in any other area of the country.) 
  2. Effective January 1, 2025, the required minimum salary will increase to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).  The January 1, 2025, increase is pegged to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings for salaried employees in the southeastern United States. 
  3. Effective July 1, 2027, the required minimum salary will update every three years based on the up-to-date wage developed by the DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
  4. The new rule also made changes to the required minimum salary for “highly compensated employees,” which is a separate (and less common) category of white-collar exemption that shares elements of the administrative, executive, and professional exemptions.  Effective July 1, 2024, the required minimum salary for the highly compensated employee exemption increases to $132,964 per year.  Effective January 1, 2025, the required minimum salary increases to $151,164 per year. 
  5. The new rule does not change the “duties” tests required to establish the applicability of the “white collar” exemption.

Here are some additional important points to keep in mind about the new rule:

  1. It is reasonably likely that business groups or other organizations opposed to the higher salary requirement will initiate litigation against the DOL seeking to stop the implementation of the new rule.  It is not clear yet whether such litigation would be successful in derailing the new rule completely or perhaps in simply delaying it.  However, some commentators have noted that the new rule’s reliance on salary percentiles is similar to the reasoning the DOL applied in its attempted update to the salary threshold in 2016, which was enjoined by the courts before it took effect. 
  2. In anticipation of the new rule going into effect, we recommend employers assess whether any of their exempt employees earn less than what the new rule requires.  If so, and the rule goes into effect, employers will have to decide whether to increase employees’ salaries or to reclassify them as non-exempt.  Employers may wish to delay announcing any such changes until closer to July 1, when we have more information about how legal challenges will impact the new rule.
  3. The new rule only addresses the minimum salary for exemptions under the FLSA, which is a federal law.  Many states, including Oregon, Washington, and California, impose their own salary requirements for exempt employees.  Employers must comply with whichever standard (state or federal) is higher.  For example, for large employers (those with 51+ employees) in Washington, the annual salary requirement is $67,724.80 for 2024 and is projected to increase to $78,249.60 in 2025.  In California, the current minimum is $66,560 under state law.  Oregon’s minimum salary (which is tied to the state’s minimum wage for non-exempt employees) is lower than the current federal minimum salary. 

Please stay tuned for more updates about the DOL’s new rule. In the meantime, please reach out to us with questions.

FTC Rolls Out New Rule Barring Most Non-Competes Effective September 4, 2024

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently published a final rule banning virtually all new non-compete agreements and, with limited exceptions, requiring employers to notify employees that their current non-compete agreements are no longer enforceable.  The new rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024.  However, because of several pending lawsuits in which businesses and business groups have contended that the FTC lacked the legal authority to issue the new rule, it is questionable whether it will go into effect at all or, if so, when. 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”  Traditionally, the FTC, which has the authority enforce the FTC Act, has relied on Section 5 to enforce consumer-protection standards and anti-competitive standards under other federal antitrust laws.  However, in January 2023, the FTC announced its intent to regulate employee non-compete agreements under the auspices of Section 5 and published a proposed rule that largely outlawed them on a nation-wide basis.

The final rule largely tracks with the proposed rule.  There are three main parts of the final rule. 

First, the rule defines a “non-compete clause” as a requirement that a “worker” (including both employees and independent contractors) refrain from “[s]eeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person” or “[o]perating a business in the United States” after the worker’s employment concludes.  Other restrictive covenants, such as confidentiality, or non-solicitation agreements, are still permitted despite the final rule.  However, such restrictive covenants could nevertheless be prohibited under the final rule if they are so broad in scope that they function as non-competes. 

Second, the final rule bars all employers that are subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction from entering into new non-compete agreements.  The only exception is for non-competes that a worker agrees to as a condition of the “bona fide” sale of a business.  However, this exception is somewhat limited because (per the FTC’s comments accompanying the final rule) it only applies when there has been a legitimate, arms-length transaction between unrelated buyers and sellers in which the seller exchanges its business good will as part of the sale. 

Third, the final rule requires employers to provide workers who are subject to current non-compete clauses “clear and conspicuous notice” in writing by September 4, 2024, that the non-compete clauses will not and cannot be legally enforced.  To be clear, this means that the new rule is retroactive.  Subject to the following three exceptions, the new rule reaches all current non-competes even if they were entered into long before the final rule goes into effect.  The first exception is for non-competes agreed to as part of “bona fide” sales of a business, as described above.  The second exception is for non-competes with so-called “senior executives,” who are defined as workers earning more than $151,164 annually who serve in a policy-making position.  Employers may enforce current non-competes with senior executives, but may not enter into any new non-competes with them.  Finally, the third exception is for non-competes that are the subject of current litigation, or where a cause of action, for the violation of the non-compete that accrues prior to September 4, 2024 may be enforced by the court hearing the matter. 

Next Steps:

Whether the final rule takes effect in September remains to be seen.  Three lawsuits have been filed in an effort to enjoin enforcement of the final rule.  It is possible (some think likely) that a court will take action to block the final rule from taking effect, and will ultimately strike it down as unlawful. 

For now, employers should consider taking the following action:

  • Consider whether your business interests can be protected with properly tailored non-solicitation or confidentiality clauses.  Please consult your legal counsel for further advice on this and to draft restrictive covenants that comply with state law (even if the FTC rule does not take effect).
  • Establish and reinforce limitations on trade secret access so that trade secrets can only be accessed by those employees who need to access them.
  • Identify employees with non-compete agreements and determine whether they are “senior executives” whose agreements will be grandfathered into compliance even if the final rule goes into effect.  Non-senior executives should be identified for notification if the final rule takes effect.
  • Revisit all restrictive covenants to ensure compliance with the new rule should it take effect.  Please consult your legal counsel to help with this analysis.
  • Create a plan for providing notice to current and former workers with non-compete clauses that their non-competes are no longer valid.  The FTC has prepared a model notice that employers may use.  Written notice must go out upon the effective date of September 4, 2024.

Please contact us with any questions about the FTC’s new rule and what to do next.

Voted one of the Top 25 blogs by LexisNexis®, the Stoel Rives LLP World of Employment blog is a resource readers can trust to find the latest developments in labor and employment law. Our team is comprised of lawyers who practice exclusively in this area and bring to bear more than 100 years