Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

Now on Spilling Secrets, our podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law:

As college basketball madness sweeps across the nation this March, we’re seizing the opportunity to explore the intriguing intersection of trade secrets law and the sports world.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, James P. Flynn, Daniel R. Levy, and Susan Gross Sholinsky appeal to both sports fans and lawyers alike to examine the strategic use of non-compete agreements across various sports. From scrutinizing non-competes in football and dissecting no-poaching arrangements in golf to unraveling compelling trade secrets in boxing, the team embarks on an examination of the legal dynamics shaping competitive sports.

Now on Spilling Secrets, our podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law:

Restrictive covenants, such as non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, are regulated differently worldwide. In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, A. Millie Warner, and Susan Gross Sholinsky take a trip around the world with Andrew Lilley, Head of Employment Law at Deloitte Legal, to highlight some of these unique distinctions and discuss how global employers can navigate these differences.

Podcast: Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Audacy, Audible, Deezer, Goodpods, iHeartRadio, Overcast, Pandora, Player FM, Pocket Casts, Spotify, YouTube Music.

* * *

On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) continued its aggressive application of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act” or “NLRA”) to workplaces without union representation and lessened the value of severance agreements for all employers by finding it unlawful for an employer to merely proffer a severance agreement that includes broad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions to an employee. In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that a severance agreement that contains a confidentiality clause and a non-disparagement clause was unlawful because, in the Board’s view, these provisions impermissibly infringe on employees’ rights under the Act. Specifically, the Board found that these two provisions limit employees’ ability to discuss their wages, hours, and working conditions (which could include disparaging remarks) with other employees, prevent employees from assisting other employees seeking assistance, and hinder employees themselves from seeking assistance from the NLRB, unions, and other outside organizations.