Content Highlights
A Federal District Court in Pennsylvania issued an opinion permitting the FTC’s non-compete ban to proceed. The Pennsylvania ruling denied a preliminary injunction that had been requested against the FTC’s rule banning non-competes. This is contrary to the Dallas Federal Court’s ruling which we discussed in “Why a Federal Court Halted the FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Competes.”
Read on to learn more about the Pennsylvania ruling on the FTC’s ban of non-competes and what to expect next.
Ruling in Pennsylvania: Is This a Win for the FTC?
On July 23, 2024, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled against ATS Tree Services, a Pennsylvania-based company that sought to block the FTC’s non-compete ban. As in the federal case filed in Dallas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also was a plaintiff in the Pennsylvania lawsuit. The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments, stating that the FTC has the authority to issue both procedural and substantive rules under the FTC Act.
Key points from the ruling include:
- Authority: The Pennsylvania judge affirmed that the FTC is empowered to make rules to prevent unfair competition. This refutes the claim that the agency overstepped its bounds, which the Dallas judge accepted.
- Irreparable Harm: The judge determined that ATS did not demonstrate irreparable harm, explaining that their concerns about employees joining competitors were speculative. The plaintiffs failed to present evidence to prove that employees would leave in large numbers if the FTC’s rule is allowed to become effective in September.
- Alternatives: The judge suggested that employers could use non-disclosure agreements to protect sensitive information instead of non-compete clauses. Employers have other legal tools to protect proprietary information and maintain competitive advantage without non-compete agreements.
The Pennsylvania decision discusses the broad interpretive authority given to the FTC under the FTC Act of 1914. The FTC Act has been a cornerstone for regulating unfair business practices, and the Pennsylvania judge believes that the FTC’s purpose in banning non-competes aligns with preventing unfair business practices.
Conflicting Decisions: Legal Uncertainty
The Pennsylvania ruling contrasts with a decision from a Texas federal court earlier this month, where Judge Ada Brown issued a preliminary injunction limited to the plaintiffs in that case. The plaintiffs include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which also is a party in the Pennsylvania case discussed above. Judge Brown concluded that the FTC likely lacked the authority to issue the non-compete rule, but she did not extend the injunction nationwide.
This discrepancy between courts creates significant uncertainty for employees. With conflicting rulings, employees must stay vigilant and prepared for further legal developments.
- Texas Ruling Details: Judge Brown’s decision was based on an interpretation that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority by trying to implement a sweeping ban on non-competes. Judge Brown held that the power relied upon by the FTC in issuing its ban of non-competes was not explicitly authorized by Congress. The Texas court’s ruling has been seen as a win for business groups concerned about the far-reaching implications of the FTC’s rule.
- Impact on Employees: The conflicting rulings from Pennsylvania and Texas leave employees and employers alike in a state of legal limbo. Companies must navigate varying legal interpretations and prepare for possible changes depending on the outcomes of ongoing and future court decisions.
What Should Employees Expect Next?
The legal landscape surrounding the FTC’s non-compete ban is in a state of upheaval. One key event to watch is the final decision expected by August 30 in the Texas case. The final decision could potentially lead to a nationwide injunction against the FTC’s rule.
If Judge Brown issues a permanent nationwide injunction, it could halt the implementation of the ban beyond the current limited scope. Additionally, another lawsuit is pending in Florida, although it is not as advanced as the Texas and Pennsylvania cases. The Florida case could also contribute to the uncertainty surrounding the FTC’s authority and the future of non-compete agreements.
If no nationwide injunction is granted at the district court level, the plaintiffs likely will appeal to the circuit courts, the appellate level. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could reverse the Dallas Federal District Court’s ruling and remand the case for Judge Brown to reconsider whether it should apply nationwide. It is likely that the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case will appeal their loss to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. These appellate courts’ decisions will be crucial in shaping the ultimate fate of the FTC’s non-compete rule. If the Fifth and Third Circuits issued conflicting opinions, that would provide fertile ground for appealing the matter to the United States Supreme Court.
If the Dallas federal court’s opinion is not expanded to apply farther than to just the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, that means that the rest of us will continue to apply the Texas non-compete statute as we always have until September 4th, when the FTC’s rule will take effect. After September 4th, all non-competes in the workplace will be banned except for existing non-competes signed by executives – and no new competes for anyone.
Contact An Expert
In the meantime, staying updated on these legal challenges will be important for employees. At Gardner Employment Law, we stay up-to-date on the latest legal developments to ensure our clients are informed. If you have questions about how these changes might affect your non-compete agreement, contact us today.