The Utah Business and Employment Lawyer

In Utah, noncompete agreements are ubiquitous. Employers use these agreements in virtually every situation for almost every type of employee. While enforceable if appropriately tailored and directed to employees who perform specific tasks and have access to specific types of information, noncompete agreements and other types of restrictive covenants are disfavored under Utah law unless they meet specific requirements. Whether you're an employer looking to safeguard your business or an employee wondering about your rights, understanding the nuances of noncompete agreements and other restrictive covenants is essential.   A noncompete agreement is a contract between an employer and an employee that restricts the employee from competing during and after the employment relationship ends. If drafted appropriately, these agreements are designed to protect trade secrets, customer relationships, and other proprietary business interests. However, n oncompete provisions can drastically limit...

Under Utah law, unemployment benefits are generally available to individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. However, if an employee has been discharged from her job, or if the employee leaves voluntarily for good cause, that does not mean the employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Employers often assume simply because they had reason to terminate an employee that benefits will be denied. And many employees wrongly assume they are not eligible for unemployment benefits if they left their job or if they were terminated.  If an employee is terminated by an employer, the employer has the burden of showing the termination was for just cause. This involves establishing three elements: culpability, knowledge and control. Establishing culpability involves looking at the seriousness of an employee's conduct and how harmful the conduct was to the employer. Establishing knowledge involves looking at whether the employee has knowledge of the expected conduct or s...

  We often review employee handbooks that contain head-scratching provisions while reviewing handbooks for updates, during the course of litigation, or in the context of advising employees on their rights and obligations. Over the past twenty-five years litigating employment cases, we've seen virtually every type of handbook provision that you could imagine. During that time, we've noticed a number of common areas where employers make mistakes that can often lead to heavy liability. Here are a few examples. 1. Including Restrictive Covenants in Employee Handbooks. We have seen numerous employees attempt to include various restrictive covenants in handbooks, including noncompete clauses, non-solicitation clauses and non-circumvention clauses. Avoid this at all costs. First, most of these provisions are unenforceable because other sections of the handbook expressly disclaim that the handbook creates and independent contractual agreement between the employer and employee. Second,...

Many employers using severance agreements to limit litigation risk and to assist employees with a transition to another position. When you are terminated - whether involuntarily, as part of a reduction-in-force or organizational restructuring - and presented with a severance agreement to review and sign, it's important to consider your legal options promptly. While negotiating a severance agreement can feel like a daunting task, especially when you're already dealing with the emotions and stresses of a job loss or a layoff, there are certain key steps that all employees should follow, which includes seeking representation from a skilled lawyer who is familiar with employment laws. In simple terms, a severance agreement is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions of your departure as an employee from a company. It typically includes severance pay and other terms in exchange for your agreement to waive and release your employer from any and all claims. Often, thes...

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will extend the comment period through April 19, 2023 for its proposed rule banning non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. (See FTC Announcement ). On January 5, 2023 the FTC issues a proposed rule that prohibits employers from using non-compete clauses with employees and independent contractors. If adopted, the FTC rule would require employers to rescind any such clauses contained in agreements with their employees and independent contractors, and provide notice that such clauses are no longer in effect. It would also prohibit such clauses moving forward. The proposed rule can be accessed here (See FTC Proposed Rule ). The rule is expressly limited to restrictive covenants that prohibit employee mobility - accepting jobs with competitors. But the proposed rule would also reach non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions to the extent such provisions are functionally equivalent to a non-compete clause. I...

An en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not cover disparate impact claims asserted by job applicants. You can read the opinion here: Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. The facts in Kleber are straightforward. Kleber, an attorney, applied for a senior in house position with CareFusion in response to a job posting that required applicants to have "3 to 7 years" of relevant legal experience (but no more).  He was 58 when he applied and the job was ultimately given to a 29 year old applicant. Kleber filed a lawsuit under the ADEA asserting both disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims under Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. The disparate impact claim was based upon the premise that the impact of the job limitation on experience was to exclude applications who were older, even if that decision was not the result of discriminatory bias or intent.   Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it...