In June 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District (i.e., Cook County) held that, absent other consideration, two years of employment is required for a restrictive covenant to be deemed supported by adequate consideration—even where the employee signed the restrictive covenant as a condition to his employment offer and even where the employee voluntarily resigned. Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., Docket No. 1-12-0327 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. June 24, 2013). To our knowledge, Fifield is the only Illinois state court decision to hold that an offer of employment by itself is insufficient consideration for a restrictive covenant; neither the Illinois Supreme Court nor any other Illinois appellate district has so held.
Since Fifield Is Not Going Away Any Time Soon, Illinois Employers Should Consider Revising the Consideration Provided for Restrictive Covenants
McDonald Hopkins hopes the readers of the Multistate Tax Update enjoyed a joyous holiday season and look forward to a prosperous 2014. In 2013, McDonald Hopkins launched the Multistate Tax Update to keep you informed regarding recent developments in the state and local tax area. We have been overwhelmed with the response to our Multistate Tax Update in 2013 and look forward to bringing you new developments in 2014. We appreciate your readership and encourage your feedback as we continue to cover the ever-evolving area of multistate taxation.
by Michael Kun
We have previously written in this blog about California’s unique “suitable seating” law, which requires some employers to “provide” “suitable seating” to some employees where “the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”
The use of multiple sets of quotation marks in the previous sentence should give readers a good idea about just how little guidance employers have about the obscure law.
The law was originally intended to provide some comfort to individuals working on production lines and performing similar tasks. Few lawsuits were ever filed alleging violations of the law until a published California Court of Appeal decision about “suitable seating” awakened the plaintiffs’ bar to yet another ground for them to file class action lawsuits against California employers.
Not unexpectedly, that has led to the filing of a great many class actions in recent years alleging that employers in a wide variety of businesses had failed to provide suitable seating.
Virtually all employers are aware that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), they are required to compensate employees for all hours worked.
What is not as clear, however, is whether the time an employee spends at training programs, lectures, meetings, and other similar activities should be considered hours worked. As a result, clients often ask whether they are required to compensate employees for time spent in such training activities.
The New York Law Journal reported on January 2, 2014 that the Town of Prattsburgh, which, during the relevant time, had virtually no laws, codes or requirements on the books governing the installation of wind turbine facilities, was not permitted by the court to retroactively preclude Ecogen Wind from building a wind farm in Steuben County, New York.
Way back in 1979, the notoriously high rate of pendency in India’s courts had prompted the Barjatyas to produce ‘Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin’. The film dealt with the option of arbitration, which offers swift justice to two parties involved in a civil dispute.
Decades on, the problem has only exacerbated, prompting an NGO to offer an institutionalized arbitration service at its Churchgate office. TheJain International Organisation that was inaugurated last week has started theInternational Settlement Forum (ISF). ISF will deliver quick decisions within a few weeks to people of all communities, the only condition is that the parties must agree to abide by the verdict.
Laws and Regulations Updates
I. Guidelines on the Disclosure of Major Financial Information and Operation Information after the Audit Cut-off Date for Financial Report contained in the Prospectus of Company Listed by Way of Initial Public Offering (the “Guidelines”) More…
Prior to the end of the year, and in compliance with Governor Inslee’s directive, the Washington Department of Health (DOH) issued new hospital Certificate of Need (CN) rules and transparency requirements for existing hospitals. Effective January 23rd, hospitals wishing to affiliate with one another (or other types of corporate restructuring) will now have to undergo full CN review. The […]
The post DOH Issues New Hospital CN Rule & Transparency Requirements appeared first on OMW Health Law.
For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.
As health care rapidly digitizes through adoption of electronic health records, mobile applications and the like, the risk of data breach is rising exponentially. To effectively manage this risk, health care companies and their business associates must be vigilant by implementing and evaluating security controls in the form of administrative, physical and technical safeguards. Health care companies also have resources to assist them with managing this risk. Specifically, the Federal agency for oversight of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) is tasked with providing technical assistance to guide companies to achieve compliance with the HIPAA security rules. Further, when companies fail to comply, OCR has enforcement authority to “obtain” compliance.