342

Trump judge?

Trump judge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes.

Under employment laws you can quit basically at any time with given notice and you can apply to any job no matter who you are or what you did before. The non compete clauses are always part of the employment contract. Usually, what's in the contract is binding, but: there's things that might be voided upon examination. Here things like consideration and unconscionability come into play. I assume this clause would be ruled unconscionable against employment laws, therefore the clause is basically removed from contracts after the fact and precedent allows for it to be voided upon future use.

employment laws > contract law. That's all it boils down to I assume, just what weighs more.

A lot of European countries allow only very limited non compete clauses or none at all. Moving in that direction is not really without precedent, so there's your legal argument.

Also obligatory IANAL, if you think I'm wrong and you got sources, please correct me. I wanna learn what I don't know.

[-] sunzu@kbin.run 2 points 4 months ago

I think we are talking about two different things. I was mainly asking for legal reason for the judge's injunction, looks like it is not a ruling but a stall tho.

She will rule later. That's what I was getting, what is the reason to disagree for the judge here.

I think you described how employment law works correctly though. non compete clause is hard to enforce in many places and for most jobs maybe save of some super red states.

But I also don't think that is their primary goal either, I would posit the goal is to "send a message" or "chill employees will to shop for work"

[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Found another article with more information:

The court found that the FTC’s effort to implement the rule likely exceeds its congressional authorization under the FTC Act and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious approach to the issue of regulating non-competes.

Rather than issue a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the rule across the country, the court’s ruling is limited to the parties in the case.

The court intends to issue a final ruling on the merits by August 30, 2024, before the FTC rule is set to go into effect. The court’s subsequent ruling may prevent the ultimate implementation of the rule on a national level.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/natlawreview.com/article/federal-district-court-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-ftc-rule-banning-non%3famp

So basically If I understand this correctly, the court is slapping the FTC for jurisdiction and saying "until further ruling Ryan LLC can legally use their non compete clauses".

So the judge has a vague notion to rule against the FTC but it's not clear if they do or if it's gonna have national consequences, as this could just as well be a case specific ruling.

So yeah, the indicators lean a little bit towards non competes staying legal, but we're still way out from knowing what will happen.

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
342 points (98.6% liked)

News

23259 readers
3184 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS