<p>Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. <em>MoFo ELC</em> equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.</p><h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2><p>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. <span>Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on <em>The American Lawyer</em>’s A-List</span>. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from<span> </span><em>Chambers</em><span> </span>and<span> </span><em>The Legal 500</em><span> </span>across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.</p>

Social

Search

Editors

Recent Posts

<p>Andrew co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, such as:</p><ul><li>OFCCP compliance</li><li>Creating and implementing affirmative action plans</li><li>Defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations</li><li>Conducting mock pay equity audits</li><li>Drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs</li><li>Complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act</li></ul><p>He is also well-versed in defending clients against claims alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of post-employment restrictions, wage-and-hour violations, discrimination, and retaliation.</p><p>Andrew routinely develops practical, proactive strategies to help employers minimize risk on various human resource matters. Andrew regularly advises clients on:</p><ul><li>EEO and diversity</li><li>Wage-and-hour</li><li>High-stakes employee terminations</li><li>Executive disputes</li><li>Reductions in force</li><li>Leaves of absence</li><li>Accommodations</li><li>Pay equity</li><li>Employee selection processes</li><li>Employment testing</li><li>Contingent workers </li><li>Policy development and application</li></ul><p>In addition, Andrew advises on a wide range of employment transactional matters, such as drafting and negotiating executive employment agreements and separations, overseeing internal investigations and audits of employment issues, and conducting employment diligence on mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions.</p><p>He has significant experience advising technology and other companies on protecting against the loss of trade secrets, proprietary information, and current and prospective clients. Andrew also represents employers in matters involving union avoidance, negotiating and drafting collective bargaining agreements, handling union grievances, and avoiding and defending unfair labor practice charges.</p><h4>Federal Contractor Experience</h4><ul><li>Defended numerous      OFCCP audits, including closing audits with a finding of no violations      against a major accounting firm, a language learning software provider,      and a technology consulting company</li><li>Obtained complete      dismissal of a significant OFCCP complaint against a large aerospace and      space transport company</li><li>Performed mock SCA      audits for various contractors</li><li>Led labor and      employment diligence for $1 billion acquisition of international security      firm</li><li>Developed and      overhauled numerous affirmative action plans and EEO training programs</li><li>Analyzed      subcontractor status for numerous companies to determine OFCCP coverage,      including for a large semiconductor manufacturer</li><li>Conducted E-Verify      and I-9 audit for a national dispute consulting contractor</li><li>Performed “single      entity” analysis for one of the largest mutual life insurance companies</li><li>Conducted pay      equity audits for contractors, including for a software and consulting      company</li><li>Obtained DOL      approval under the SCA for self-funded fringe benefit program of an aviation      and space contractor</li><li>Advised a multinational      package delivery company on establishing program to conduct denied party      screening under lists maintained by OFAC and BIS while minimizing risk of      discrimination claims and compliance with background check laws</li><li>Advised a global      coffee and coffeehouse chain on establishing hiring processes to avoid      discrimination claims while complying with ITAR/EAR</li><li>Developed business      ethics policies and programs for a large pharmaceutical manufacturer</li></ul><h4>Other Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Defended education      association against claims by former employers of two executives alleging      breach of restrictive covenants and theft of trade secrets and      confidential information</li><li>Obtained      preliminary injunction enforcing a noncompetition agreement and other      restrictive covenants against a former senior sales executive of a      technology firm</li><li>Led internal      investigation of sexual harassment claims against COO of a public real      estate firm</li><li>Advised a global      food manufacturer in avoiding litigation while terminating employee      threatening whistleblower claims based on employer’s confidential      information</li><li>Defended former      senior executives of a global manufacturer of performance fabrics against      allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of      noncompetition agreements</li><li>Advised an entrepreneur      in creating startup while minimizing risk of his former employer pursuing      enforcement of restrictive covenants </li><li>Assisted a property      management firm in navigating internal investigation of whistleblower claims      related to alleged fraud, ethics violations, and sexual harassment by      senior executive</li><li>Won motion for      reconsideration convincing court to grant summary judgment in gender      discrimination and retaliation case against a large DC employer </li><li>Obtained terminating      sanctions and attorneys’ fees and costs for discovery violations in a      discrimination suit against a large utility provider </li><li>Obtained favorable arbitration decision for a software      company in claims by former executive alleging breach of his employment      agreement</li><li>Advised a company      board in navigating termination of CEO and successfully defended CEO’s      breach of contract and wage claims</li><li>Defended numerous      EEOC charges, including against a national event planner, a multinational      professional services company, and an operator of research and development      centers for the government</li><li>Defended and      settled over 30 unfair labor practice charges against a national call      center operator</li><li>Negotiated new      collective bargaining agreements with four separate unions in bankruptcy      of an international maritime shipping company</li><li>Awarded pro bono      achievement award for defending a non profit in litigation and several      administrative audits before the EEOC and state agencies related to a      former employee’s whistleblower and discrimination claims, including      defending multiple onsite investigations</li><li>Oversaw validation      of pre-employment tests for a national food service distributor</li></ul><p>Prior to joining MoFo, Andrew was a human resources manager for an Inc. 500 company, ranked as one of the fastest-growing private companies in the United States.</p><p dir="ltr"><span dir="ltr">Andrew is a member of the steering committee and actively involved in the Washington Metro Industry Liaison Group. He is also a member of the firm’s global Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) steering committee.</span></p><h4>Rankings</h4><ul><li>Recommended for Government Contracts – <em>Legal 500 US</em> 2019 </li></ul>

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Partner

<p>Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.</p>

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

<p><em>MoFo ELC</em> equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <span></span><a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a><span> </span>practice page and read about our <span></span><a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>. </p>

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image.jpg

<p>Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog</p>

elcblog-header-image

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislati

Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

<p>Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.</p>

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

<p>In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.</p>

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

<p>Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.</p>

MoFo Tech Blog

<p>News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.</p>

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

<p>By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.</p>

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

<span class="pms-7702c">Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues</span>

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Artificial Intelligence

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Department of Labor (DOL)

Discrimination

EEOC

European Union

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Leaves of Absence

Legislation

NLRB

Non-Compete

OFCCP

PAGA

Paid Sick Leave

Pay Equity

Privacy & Data Security

Reductions in force (RIFs)

Trade Secrets

Wage and Hour

Workplace Misconduct

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Andrew R. Turnbull

More

The “Preventative Duty”: New Law Places Active Duty on Employers in the UK to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Good News for Employers: Texas Court Blocks FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

Potential Exceptions Under FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Maryland Poised to Continue Trend of Jurisdictions Mandating Pay Transparency in Job Postings

LinkedIN

<p>On July 12, 2022, the D.C. Council amended the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (the “Amendment”), walking back from an earlier version of the bill that, as previously discussed, contemplated a nearly total ban for employee non-competes. The Amendment, however, places significant limits on employee non-competes, including only permitting non-competes for certain highly compensated employees (currently earning $150,000 or more annually), limiting non-competes to a one-year, post-employment duration, mandating certain procedures and notices when entering non-competes, and adding anti-retaliation protections. Violations of the Amendment can result in monetary fines as well as administrative enforcement and private rights of action. Unless vetoed by Mayor Muriel Bowser or Congress, the Amendment is slated to go into effect on October 1, 2022.</p>Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220721-dc-council-waters-down-non-compete-ban" target="_self"><strong>client alert</strong></a>.<div></div>

D.C. Council Waters Down Non-Compete Ban While Keeping Some Significant Limitations

Andrew co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies.

gebert_eric_blog_150x150.png

gebert_eric_common_640x280.jpg

gebert_eric_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gebert_eric_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gebert_eric_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Eric has experience defending class action, labor and employment, and intellectual property matters, including developing procedural strategies for clients preparing for trial, as well as examining in

Eric Gebert

220721-elc-blog-thumbnail.jpg

<p>D.C. Council Waters Down Non-Compete Ban While Keeping Some Significant Limitations</p>

220721-elc-blog-thumbnail

<p>On January 11, 2021, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the <a target="_blank" href="https://lims.dccouncil.us/downloads/LIMS/43373/Signed_Act/B23-0494-Signed_Act.pdf">Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020</a> (“the Act”), effectively eliminating non-competes in Washington, D.C., except under very limited circumstances. The Act is anticipated to take effect on March 19, 2021. If the Act becomes effective, not only will it add D.C. to California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma as the jurisdictions in the U.S. completely banning post-employment non-competes, but it will go beyond those laws in prohibiting non-competes and anti-moonlighting policies during employment. The Act also continues the trend of states passing laws limiting the use of non-compete agreements.</p><h3>Coverage</h3><p>The Act applies to all private employers “operating” in D.C. It covers nearly all employees and prospective employees who perform work or are reasonably anticipated to perform work in D.C. for covered employers, with certain limited exceptions, including:</p><ul><li>Volunteers engaging in the activities of a nonprofit, educational, charitable, or religious organization; and</li><li>Medical physicians with a medical license, who completed residency, and make over $250,000 per year.</li></ul><p>Because there is no threshold for the amount of work employees must perform in D.C. to be covered by the Act, it is unclear whether the Act will apply to individuals based outside of D.C. that occasionally work in D.C. It is also unclear whether the phrase “operating within the District” will be interpreted to apply to private employers who do not maintain an office in D.C., but have employees who perform services or work in D.C.</p><h3>Covered Non-competes</h3><p>The Act bans covered employers from entering into or enforcing non-competes with covered employees, whether the non-competes are in a formal contract or part of the employer’s workplace policies or practices. Significantly, the Act bars non-competes and policies that prohibit employees from “simultaneously or subsequently” being employed by or performing services for another person or operating an employee’s own business. Accordingly, unlike other jurisdictions, such as California, that bar post-employment non-compete agreements, the Act goes one step further by banning non-compete agreements both <em>during</em> and after employment.</p><h3>Agreements Not Covered</h3><p>The Act does not impact any non-compete agreements that are signed before the effective date of the Act. The Act also expressly exempts non-compete agreements executed in connection with the sale of a business and agreements restricting employees from disclosing an employer’s confidential information or trade secrets. The Act is silent, however, as to whether agreements not to solicit an employer’s customers, vendors, or employees are prohibited.</p><h3>Effective Date</h3><p>Any non-compete agreements entered into after the Act is enacted will be void and unenforceable. The Act was sent to Congress on February 1, 2021 for review. Unless Congress rescinds the law, which seems unlikely given that the Democrats have the majority in both chambers of Congress, the Act is projected to be effective on March 19, 2021.</p><h3>Retaliation Prohibited</h3><p>The Act makes it illegal to retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an employee who refuses to agree to or comply with a non-compete agreement that violates the Act. Specifically, employers are prohibited from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against employees for:</p><ul><li>Refusing      to agree to a non-compete provision;</li><li>Failing      to comply with a non-compete provision, whether in an agreement or a      workplace policy; or</li><li>“Asking,      informing, or complaining about the existence, applicability, or validity      of a non-compete provision or a workplace policy that the employee      reasonably believes is prohibited under” the Act to an employer.</li></ul><h3>Enforcement and Penalties</h3><p>Employees have a right to either file an administrative complaint with the mayor or pursue a civil claim in court. The D.C. mayor and attorney general are responsible for administering and enforcing administrative claims under the Act. If the Act becomes law, the mayor will be required to issue rules to implement the Act. The D.C. mayor or attorney general may also require covered employers to make records required by the Act available for inspection. Employers found to violate the Act are subject to administrative fines ranging from $350 to $3,000 per violation.</p><h3>Notice to Employees</h3><p>If the Act becomes effective, employers must also notify employees in writing of the non-compete ban by using the following notice:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">No employer operating in the District of Columbia may request or require any employee working in the District of Columbia to agree to a non-compete policy or agreement, in accordance with the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020.</p><p>The notice must be provided to existing employees no later than: (1) 90 days of the Act going into effect using certain specified text in the Act; (2) seven days after hiring; or (3) 14 days after the employer receives a written request for such statement from the employee.</p><h3>Looking Ahead</h3><p>Employers with operations in D.C. or employees who work within D.C. should review their agreements and policies in light of the potential, significant changes to D.C. law. Since the Act aims to ban both post-employment non-competes and anti-moonlighting policies, employers will need to determine what agreements or policies they can put in place to protect themselves from unfair competition either before the Act takes effect or without the use of non-competes. Employers may want to consider trying to get non-compete agreements in place before the law takes effect. In addition, employers should also consider updating their confidential information policies and agreements, as well as their non-solicitation clauses, to ensure they can protect their rights to the greatest extent possible.</p><p>Because the Act might cover employees who only occasionally work in D.C., employers will also need to consider which employees might be covered by the Act. Although the Act will clearly apply to employees who are based in D.C., it remains to be seen whether employees only occasionally working in D.C. might be covered. Employers may want to consider whether they can use a choice of law provision in non-competes for non-D.C.-based employees to avoid the application of the Act.</p><p>With the Act being the latest in a trend of jurisdictions across the United States cracking down on non-compete provisions, it is important to continue to monitor developments in this area that may impact an employer’s non-compete strategies and practices. As we previously <a target="_blank" href="https://elc.mofo.com/topics/Tightening-Restrictions-on-Noncompetes.html">reported</a>, other states have issued or have pending legislation significantly limiting the use of non-competes, including several states banning such agreements with low wage workers. It is also possible that there could be federal efforts to limit the use of non-competes under the Biden administration. On the campaign trail, President Biden said that he opposes non-compete clauses, “except the very few that are absolutely necessary to protect a narrowly defined category of trade secrets.”</p>

200326-gov-contracts-coronavirus-tile-promo.jpg

<p>The District of Columbia Joins Jurisdictions Banning Non-competes</p>

The District of Columbia Joins Jurisdictions Banning Non-competes

200326-gov-contracts-coronavirus-tile-promo

On January 11, 2021, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (“the Act”), effectively eliminatin

<p>This week, on August 3, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.</em>, which resolved two questions regarding the standards to be applied for non-competition agreements and disputes between businesses in California. The first was whether a plaintiff in a dispute between businesses is required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to establish a claim for tortious interference with a contract that is terminable at-will, to which the court responded, yes. The second question, was what is the proper standard for determining whether California Business and Professions Code section 16600 (Section 16600) voids a non-competition agreement between two businesses, to which the court responded, the Rule of Reason.</p><p>Read the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200807-california-supreme-court.html" target="_blank">full client alert</a>.</p>

tate_eric_blog_150x150.png

tate_eric_common_640x280.jpg

tate_eric_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tate_eric_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tate_eric_social_600x600.jpg

Eric Akira Tate co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents technology and other companies in bet-the-company trade secrets and employee mobility cases.

Eric Akira Tate

<p>Eric Tate chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He has represented technology and other companies in the biggest and most highly-publicized trade secrets and employee mobility cases across multiple industries. Eric also represents companies in whistleblower, wage and hour, and other employment litigation.</p>

Eric Tate

<p>California Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for B2B Non-Competition Agreements and Disputes in California</p>

This week, on August 3, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., which resolved two questions regarding the 

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for B2B Non-Competition Agreements and Disputes in California