We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 863

Breach of contract claim may succeed where a misappropriation claim fails

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that a former employer’s price quotations to prospective customers were not trade secrets under Oklahoma law because they did not contain a confidentiality provision, but the former employee who took advantage of those quotations on behalf of his new employer did violate his non-compete covenant

Passage of S. 1059 to impose mandatory triple damages on all employers with Massachusetts employees

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2008

On April 14, 2008 Massachusetts Senate Bill No. 1059 (S. 1059) passed without the signature of Governor Deval Patrick

Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses $86 million starbucks tip-pooling award

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2009

On June 2, 2009, the California Court of Appeal issued an important and favorable "tip-pooling" decision for California employers

Illinois Appellate Court says legitimate business interest not necessary to enforce a covenant not to compete

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 5 2009

In a landmark decision just issued, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, ruled that an ex-employer seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete against former sales personnel need only show that the time and territory restrictions are reasonable and need not prove, in addition, that there is a sufficient legitimate business interest in enforcement

Medical leave is one certification enough?

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 25 2008

On April 7, 2008 the California Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central

Eleventh Circuit affirms district court’s injunctive remedy on non-competition agreement

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2008

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the enforcement of a non-competition agreement against a former employee where the plaintiff-company appealed from judgment entered in its favor because it was dissatisfied with the result

Ninth Circuit withdraws decision awarding overtime pay to out-of-state residents working in California and asks California Supreme Court for guidance

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 26 2009

On February 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its November 6, 2008 decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on a number of issues

District court rejects employer's attempt to use the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act against former employees

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2009

In Lasco Foods, Inc. v. Hall and Shaw Sales, Marketing & Consulting, LLC, 600 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (E.D. Mo. 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed an employer’s claim that two former employees violated the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. 1030, et seq., by deleting information from and refusing to return their company laptops after resigning

Business escapes liability for overbroad criminal history request

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 17 2008

A recent District Court case addresses whether a company that does not directly employ an individual may be liable for violations of Chapter 151B on the theory that it was the individual’s “de facto” employer

Punitive damages sustained where jury could infer that employer provided false testimony

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 17 2008

In Ciccarelli v. School Department of Lowell, the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered whether punitive damages were appropriate in a retaliation case brought under Chapter 151B