The FTC has had non-competes in its sights for some time under the Biden administration. Going back to 2021 the administration instructed the FTC to do what is doing now – challenge non-competes. Here is what I said back then:

We’ve got a long way to go before this gets anywhere.  First, of all there is a very real question of what restrictions the FTC can implement to restrict non-competes.  I can tell you here in Texas we have an attorney general that challenges any federal action that infringes on state’s rights and I doubt FTC restrictions that impact the Texas Non-Compete Statue will go unchallenged.  Second, the actual language recognizes that non-competes may be appropriate in certain situations – there isn’t going to be a ban.  Finally, even if there was a ban there remains other items in an employer’s arsenal to use including: (1) non-solicitation provisions; (2) non-disclosure provisions; and (3) notice/garden leave policies.

So now the FTC is in the process of taking comments on the proposed rule. The comment period ends on March 23. In sum the FTC is attempting to ban non-competes and force employers to rescind those currently in place. Importantly, the rule does not prevent customer non-solicitation provisions. There are exceptions and exemptions that I will not address here but agreements used in buy/sale agreements are excepted.

After the close of comments the FTC can issue the rule or reopen the period for comments. After the rule is issued the “fun” will begin. Expect a lawsuit, in a favorable jurisdiction like Texas, to challenge the provision and the ability of the FTC to effectively “legislate”. A lot will depend on what ends up in the final rule. There is a very good chance the rule will run through the appellate courts and end up before the Supreme Court.

What should employers do now? (1) Follow FTC developments – specifically what the final rule is and how the FTC intends to implement the rule; (2) make sure your non-competes are tight and focused (always good advice); and (3) continue to use non-solicitation agreements.


Since our last update Texas employers have been confronted with mixed messages on the vaccine mandate.  Let’s try to catch up here.  Putting politics and science aside we have a conflict between Governor Abbot’s executive order (no vaccines) and the various executive orders from President Biden that are still running through the courts.

The Update

Texas Unemployment Benefits – On December 8, 2021 the Texas Workforce Commission sent out a letter telling employers that it would be “unlikely” that an employee fired for refusing to be immunized would not receive unemployment benefits.  You can read the letter here.

The OSHA (ETS) Rule – In January the Supreme Court ruled that the OSHA order requiring employers with 100+ employees to mandate immunizations or a testing regimen for employees would not go into effect

The CMS Rule – On the same day the the Supreme Court issued the OSHA ruling it also ruled that the Medicare/Medicaid immunization requirement was lawful.

The Federal Contractor Mandate -There is a federal contractor mandate that is on hold (due to the courts) and it is not being enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Requirements.

Other Cases  – On January 21 a Texas federal judge blocked an immunization requirement for all federal workers.  Finally, on February 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a case back to a trial court in Fort Worth that had previously blocked an attempted challenge by United Airlines workers to undo United’s immunization mandate.

My Crystal Ball – If I was a betting on outcomes I would put money on the healthcare worker immunization requirement being the only federal legislation left standing at the end of the day.


Texas Employer Moves

So what are Texas employers to do?  The simple answer is do not require a mandate, with limited exceptions.

  1. Does Texas have an immunization requirement? No.  In fact, Governor has issued an executive order that states the opposite.
  2. Are there federal immunization laws that require Texas employers to require immunizations?  Yes – the CMS provision referenced above but that is limited to health care workers.
  3. What about situations where general contractors require Texas subcontractors and suppliers to require the shot?    Other than the CMS mandate there is no federal requirement that is effective.  That said many non-Texas businesses are requiring the immunization.   This type of situation will require a case by case analysis – talk to your lawyer.  Requiring the shot also may run off employees in a limited labor market.

Texas employers that require the vaccine mandate and then fire an employee will likely have to pay unemployment benefits.  What other enforcement actions the State of Texas takes remains to be seen.  In most cases Texas employers will have to defer to Texas law and Governor Abbott’s executive order which is clear – no immunization requirement.

It’s tough to keep up to date in Texas when it comes to mask/vaccine mandates.  We have the interplay of federal/state and local laws and regulations and needless to say on top of the requirements we have a little politics sprinkled on top. So if you are a Texas employer or employee what are the rules?  The short of it: (1) Employees of federal contractors have to be immunized; (2) Companies with 100 or more employees will have to be immunized once we have clarity from OSHA; and (3) Governor Abbott has banned immunization mandates which will really mean that companies with less than 100 employees can’t require immunizations.

How does all this work?

Here are the key “orders” with some thoughts:

  • September 9, 2021  President Biden Executive Order Requiring Vaccines for Federal Contractors – this trickles down to subcontractors as well.  There is not much detail in this order and certainly nothing on enforcement.  The airlines pointed to this requirement when Governor Abbott announced his ban in October.
  • September 9, 2021 President Biden Announces Vaccine Requirement for Company’s with 100 or More Employers – this is the big one and relies on OSHA’s authority.  Problem is we have no regulations from OSHA (they are said to be coming) and we still don’t have an idea on when this will be implemented.  Business groups are already asking for additional time to implement this and there will be legal challenges.
  • October 11, 2021 Governor Abbott Executive Order Banning Vaccine Mandates – President Biden’s orders (above) likely trump Abbott’s executive order and that’s what businesses seem to think as well.  Regardless, that still leaves open business with 100 employers or less.  It remains to be seen how this all plays out and Governor Abbott’s order has little detail.

We’ll continue to monitor the situation.


Back in 2015 there was a lot of publicity about a non-compete Jimmy John’s was implementing for its sandwich makers.  Here is what I said back then:

“When news of the Jimmy John’s non-compete came out last October my concern was the impact it would have on businesses with legitimate non-competes.  There is always a populist theme that is anti-non-compete.  Employees should be able to come and go as they please and a non-compete agreement prevents that.  “Bad” non-competes undermine “good” non-competes.  There are situations where non-competes make sense and there is an interest worthy of protection.  But when bad non-competes are in play and receive attention, the discussion of why we have non-competes in the first place follows.”

Non-competes are low hanging fruit for politicians but they rarely receive Presidential attention and are generally challenged on a state level. Last week the President delivered a wide ranging executive order that addressed among other things non-compete agreements.  The press release/fact sheet for the order said the following (my translation in part):

  1. Many Americans workers have non-competes;
  2. Non-competes make it harder for workers to move to higher paying jobs;
  3. The President would like to ban or limit non-competes; and
  4. The Executive Order “Encourages the FTC to ban or limit non-compete agreements.”

The actual order states:

To address agreements that may unduly limit workers’ ability to change jobs, the Chair of the FTC is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.

We’ve got a long way to go before this gets anywhere.  First, of all there is a very real question of what restrictions the FTC can implement to restrict non-competes.  I can tell you here in Texas we have an attorney general that challenges any federal action that infringes on state’s rights and I doubt FTC restrictions that impact the Texas Non-Compete Statue will go unchallenged.  Second, the actual language recognizes that non-competes may be appropriate in certain situations – there isn’t going to be a ban.  Finally, even if there was a ban there remains other items in an employer’s arsenal to use including: (1) non-solicitation provisions; (2) non-disclosure provisions; and (3) notice/garden leave policies.

There was a lot of pomp and circumstance about the order but that end of the day, the death of the non-compete is not coming anytime soon.


A few years ago I addressed venue provisions in employment contracts (see below).  A few additional thoughts –

  • A provision that specifies venue in a particular county, i.e. Dallas County, Texas or city may not always work – while Texas courts will enforce a provision that specifies Texas as the place of venue they won’t necessarily a county or city (there are some exceptions) – So you could have a situation where the dispute is resolved in Texas but not necessarily the forum specified in the contract.
  • There is a venue provision that some courts (it’s complicated) have held that a defendant must be sued in their county of residence when the primary relief sought is injunctive.

Regardless, still include a venue provision that provides for a specific county.

Post From May 2018

Whenever I draft or review an employment agreement (or for that matter any contract) one of the first things I look for is a venue provision.  Usually there is one, but if not you fall back on the laws of the state the party would like to bring suit in to see if venue works.  There is nothing that will take the steam out of a lawsuit then the contention it was filed in the wrong place. Drafting tip – make sure there is a venue provision.

So, assuming there is a venue provision it’s likely there is a choice of law provision as well.  Often times the venue provision will require an employee to agree to venue in the state/city where the employer is located.  The idea from the employer’s standpoint is it would rather enforce its agreements in the place where it is located and in most cases under the same laws.  The provision will look something like this:

Continue Reading Non-Compete Venue Fights

Over the last few months I’ve started following Formula 1 Racing.  There are fast cars with interesting personalities and races all over the world including Austin, Texas in October.  It is also a very expensive sport backed by big brands and wealthy people.  Without getting into the nuances of race car driving (I couldn’t tell you what they are anyway) each team has 2 cars with of course 2 drivers.  There are 10 teams – 20 cars.  On Saturday the drivers qualify and seed themselves for the race. There are differences between the cars and millions of dollars go into the design and development of those cars.

Mercedes has been on top for the last few seasons with a driver named Lewis Hamilton from Great Britain as their lead driver.  He’s one of the most highly compensated athletes in the world and pretty good at what he does.   Red Bull (the energy drink) has a stellar history but been able to keep up with Mercedes.

Recently Red Bull made a play for Mercedes engineer Ben Hodgkinson and successfully lured him away.  Currently, Red Bull relies on Toyota for its engines but is going to begin building its own engines which is where Hodgkinson comes into the story.  Reportedly, Hodgkinson has a garden leave provision in his contract with Mercedes – meaning once Hodgkinson gave notice to Mercedes that he was leaving he is required to sit out and continue to get paid by Mercedes.  Yes, that’s right, Mercedes pays him and he can’t work.   By all accounts Hodkingson won’t be available to work as Red Bull as a technical director until the end of 2022.  For employees that have technical know-how like Hodgkinson, it makes sense for Mercedes to keep him off the market even if it costs them some money.   So Hodgkinson is on “gardening leave” for the near term.

The concept of garden leave came from European financial services company.  No Texas court has construed the enforceability of a similar type provision and American companies have have been slow to adopt the garden leave approach to post-employment covenants.   That said you often times see notice provisions that require certain amount of notice before an employee can leave.




Texas non-compete law has changed very little over the last few years.  There have not been any seminal Texas Supreme Court cases construing the Texas non-compete statute and little instructive case law from our intermediate appellate courts providing guidance.  The reality is Texas trial judge are construing non-competes at the temporary restraining order/temporary injunction stages all the time but Texas trial judges don’t issue published opinions and we don’t see many appeals from those decisions.

So what are employers and employees to do?

From the Employer Side

Think narrow and reasonable.  In terms of time, the shorter the better.  Everyone always wants to two years but will six months accomplish what is necessary?  Of course every situation is different.  In terms of geography limit the covenant to where the employee worked and make sure the services they are prohibited from offering are the services they offered for the employer.  Remember the Texas statute requires that the non-compete be ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement meaning there has to be something of value provided to the employee.  When in doubt remember that a good customer non-solicitation provision can often be an alternative to a non-compete and easier to enforce.

From the Employee Side

First, don’t sign it unless you have to do so.  Second, consider the restrictions you will encounter if you decide to move on to another job and assume they are enforceable.   No one likes to think that way at the outset of employment but you should.  Can you push back on some of the terms?  Anything less is better.  Employers do enforce non-competes and courts will uphold them.  Don’t dismiss these restrictions as simply part of standard employment paperwork – they are not.

We’ve now been in the midst of this global pandemic since March (give or take a few weeks) and we have a little more runway to look at the state of employee movement.  It seems that most folks fall in three categories in terms of the Coivd impact on their job: (1) looking for a job; (2) in a precarious spot and not looking to make a move; or (3) looking to make a move.  Of course these are three categories you usually see.  After the initial impact of Covid, it appears employers/employees are adjusting to our new normal.

From my admittedly limited view representing employees and employers I don’t think things are back to normal but employee movement continues.  There is generally less movement towards the end of the year because employees have compensation tied to year end bonuses and metrics.

Some general thoughts on post-employment covenants:

  1. Texas employers continue to us overly broad non-competes and non-solicits – make them narrow if you want them to stick;
  2. Texas employers are using severance packages that are tied to non-competition/non-solicitation covenants to lock down former employee.  For example, I agree to pay you $XXXX a month as long as you don’t compete.  These are simple and basically they employer gets whatever they want and the employee gets paid as long as they comply.
  3. This is a gross generalization but most employees don’t enforce their non-competes/non-solicits.
  4. Good luck enforcing a non-compete against a former employee that a company terminated in the the time of Covid.  Yes, in theory you can do it but I can’t imagine judges are going to be happy to see those types of cases in this environment.
  5. If a company includes a non-compete in a an employment agreement it generally should also include a non-solicit (customers), anti-raid (employees), and confidentiality provision.  Also, think about a notice provision for termination of employment.
  6. Employees work very hard to figure out how they can finesse the requirements of a non-compete and non-solicit so they can still make a move.

Stay safe.



Tomorrow, I have the privilege of speaking to the Executive Search Owners Association. Over the years I have had the privilege of representing placement professionals in a number of circumstances. Some tips:

  1. Make sure your engagement agreements/contracts make sense and are enforceable;
  2. Remember that non-competes and non-solicitation agreements in Texas can be enforceable;
  3. Screen your candidates to determine if they have entered into a non-compete or non-solicit;
  4. Remember that if someone you placed is sued it is likely that their new employer will be as well;
  5. Protect your candidate and client information – that information can be a trade secret;
  6. Make sure you are in compliance with the Texas Occupations Code;
  7. A little money spent on an attorney up front can save a lot of money down the road;
  8. Be factual when you talk about a potential employer;
  9. Don’t give legal advice; and
  10. If you sign an agreement prepare to have to comply with it.

Below are some resources and previous writings placement professionals might find of use:

Some COVID-19 Links for employers:


Yesterday Judge Jenkins entered a revised stay at home order –  March 29 Dallas County Order – that impacts the way construction companies in Dallas County do business.  Some highlights:

  • If a worker has a temperature above 99.6 degrees they have to stay at home;
  • Employer must check worker’s temperature;
  • Shift work mandatory – basically split crews by 50%;
  • No gatherings during breaks/meals;
  • Requirements for hand washing, soap and hand sanitizer, and 1 toilet for every 15 workers;
  • No retaliation against an employee who self-quarantines or is advised to self-quarantine; and
  • Each site must designate a COVID-19 safety monitor.

A violation of the order is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or jail time no to exceed 180 days.

This version of the order expires on April 3.

We will continue to track this.  As this pandemic continues expect further refinement of the order for specific businesses.  Austin currently has an order in place that prevents most construction.