Main Line: 479.443.2705
Fax Line: 479.443.2718
Email: info@rmp.law
Bentonville – 479-553-9800
Jonesboro – 870-394-5200
Little Rock – 501-954-9000
On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new Rule putting an end to employment-related non-compete clauses. In its justification for the rule, the FTC called non-compete clauses “an unfair method of competition” and stated it is a “violation for [employers] to… enter into non-compete clauses (“non-competes”) with workers.” In today’s very competitive labor market, the new FTC Rule creates a significant disruption for employers.
This new FTC provision—set to take effect in 120 days—renders existing non-compete agreements unenforceable. Existing non-compete agreements with senior executives will remain enforceable, although employers cannot require newly hired senior executives to sign such an agreement.
After the Rule takes effect, employers are required to deliver personal notice to employees (past and present) who signed a non-compete agreement informing them agreements are no longer enforceable. In the notice, employers must inform employees they are free to accept any job or start any business, even if it is directly competitive with the employer.
Compliance with the FTC Rule is not optional. Employers should consider new ways they can protect against a former employee gaining a competitive advantage by using the employer- provided training, the relationships made possible by the employer, or the confidential information learned from the employer. RMP can assist you in navigating this disruption and can provide advice on how to most effectively protect your vital business interests going forward.
RMP Attorneys At Law has an experienced Employment Law Attorney team dedicated to helping you navigate these changes. If you have any questions or would like guidance, reach out to one of our employment attorneys, Tim Hutchinson, Seth Haines, Larry McCredy, or Taylor Baltz or call 479.443.2705.
The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with RMP’s argument that participants in a work-based, drug rehabilitation program are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. DARP, a nonprofit drug and alcohol recovery program provided services to drug court defendants who chose to attend the program in lieu of incarceration. DARP sent some participants to work at Hendren Plastics who did not pay the participants directly, but paid DARP based on the number of hours that participants worked and, in an amount, greater than the minimum wage. The participants’ wages were paid to DARP to cover the cost of the program including room, board, medical care, travel, and rehabilitation services. Mark Fochtman, a former participant, brought a collective action alleging that Hendren Plastics owed the participants direct payment of the minimum wage and overtime. At the trial court, RMP, as lead counsel, argued that the participants were not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act because they were not employees. Instead, the economic realities of the arrangement showed the participants were the primary beneficiaries of the work arrangement because the participants entered the program to avoid imprisonment and had no reason to expect direct compensation from Hendren Plastics.
On appeal, RMP partnered with Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C. who served as lead counsel. In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit agreed with the arguments made at the trial level by RMP.
This decision provides much-needed guidance and reassurance for drug courts, rehabilitation organizations, and their corporate partners who are committed to finding alternative ways to treat drug offenders outside of incarceration.
Decision can be found at: Mark Fochtman v. Hendren Plastics, Inc., No. 20-2061 (8th Cir. 2022) :: Justia
RMP Trial Counsel: RMP Attorney Tim Hutchinson – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Attorney Larry Mccredy – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Attorney Seth Haines – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Appellate Counsel: RMP Attorney Lisa Geary – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C. Appellate Counsel:
Missy McJunkins Duke | CGWG
Abtin Mehdizadegan | CGWG
The information provided on this website does not constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.
The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with RMP’s argument that participants in a work-based, drug rehabilitation program are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. DARP, a nonprofit drug and alcohol recovery program provided services to drug court defendants who chose to attend the program in lieu of incarceration. DARP sent some participants to work at Hendren Plastics who did not pay the participants directly, but paid DARP based on the number of hours that participants worked and, in an amount, greater than the minimum wage. The participants’ wages were paid to DARP to cover the cost of the program including room, board, medical care, travel, and rehabilitation services. Mark Fochtman, a former participant, brought a collective action alleging that Hendren Plastics owed the participants direct payment of the minimum wage and overtime. At the trial court, RMP, as lead counsel, argued that the participants were not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act because they were not employees. Instead, the economic realities of the arrangement showed the participants were the primary beneficiaries of the work arrangement because the participants entered the program to avoid imprisonment and had no reason to expect direct compensation from Hendren Plastics.
On appeal, RMP partnered with Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C. who served as lead counsel. In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit agreed with the arguments made at the trial level by RMP.
This decision provides much-needed guidance and reassurance for drug courts, rehabilitation organizations, and their corporate partners who are committed to finding alternative ways to treat drug offenders outside of incarceration.
Decision can be found at: Mark Fochtman v. Hendren Plastics, Inc., No. 20-2061 (8th Cir. 2022) :: Justia
RMP Trial Counsel: RMP Attorney Tim Hutchinson – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Attorney Larry Mccredy – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Attorney Seth Haines – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
RMP Appellate Counsel: RMP Attorney Lisa Geary – Attorneys at Law | RMP Law
Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C. Appellate Counsel:
Missy McJunkins Duke | CGWG
Abtin Mehdizadegan | CGWG
The information provided on this website does not constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.
Main Line: 479.443.2705
Fax Line: 479.443.2718
Email: info@rmp.law
Bentonville – 479-553-9800
Jonesboro – 870-394-5200
Little Rock – 501-954-9000
JOHNSON
5519 Hackett Street, Suite 300
Springdale, AR 72762
BENTONVILLE
809 SW A Street, Suite 105
Bentonville, AR 72712
JONESBORO
710 Windover Road, Suite B
Jonesboro, AR 72401
LITTLE ROCK
11601 Pleasant Ridge, #301,
Little Rock, AR 72212