Peter A. Steinmeyer, Member of the Firm in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, in the firm’s Chicago office, was quoted in Axios, in “Fight Over Health Noncompete Pacts Far from Over,” by Tina Reed.
Following is an excerpt:
Hospitals and other health providers will shift their attention to how states opt to police non-compete agreements now that a federal court has blocked a Federal Trade Commission ban on the widely used contracts.
Why it matters: The FTC's contentious effort had far-reaching implications for health care — and raised the profile of an issue that was already getting attention in statehouses, experts say.
The big picture: The wide-ranging ban blocking employers from restricting workers' ability to work for rivals would have taken effect Sept. 4.
Large employers, including health systems, were largely expecting an injunction before then, but were making some preparations as the deadline closed in.
But the ruling, alongside previous preliminary injunctions in Pennsylvania and Florida, are likely to be appealed. …
Driving the news: California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma have blanket noncompete bans.
Starting in 2025, Pennsylvania and Louisiana will see limits to noncompetes specifically for certain health care workers.
They're following the lead of Iowa, Kentucky and Massachusetts, which saw health care-specific noncompete bans take effect within the last two years. …
Between the lines: …
That's particularly important with "increasing judicial skepticism" of the traditional noncompete, Peter Steinmeyer of Epstein Becker Green told Axios.
They may want to consider alternative arrangements such as non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements or an arrangement known as garden leave, or a period during which an employee is paid while being required to stay away from work.
They may also want to more narrowly tailor noncompetes to a shorter duration of time or smaller geographic areas.
