US judge partially blocks FTC ban on worker noncompete agreements
Adds details, background, paragraph 5, FTC statement, paragraphs 6-7, Chamber of Commerce, paragraphs 8-9
By Daniel Wiessner
July 3 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday partially blocked a U.S. Federal Trade Commission rule from taking effect that would ban agreements commonly signed by workers not to join their employers' rivals or launch competing businesses.
U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said in a written decision the FTC, which enforces federal antitrust laws, lacked the power to adopt broad rules prohibiting practices that it deems unfair methods of competition.
About 30 million people, or 20% of U.S. workers, have signed noncompetes, according to the FTC.
Brown, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, blocked the FTC from enforcing the rule against a coalition of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business lobby, and tax service firm Ryan, pending the outcome of their consolidated lawsuits.
The judge denied their request to block the rule nationwide, saying it was not clear whether such an order was appropriate. Brown said she would issue a final ruling by Aug. 30, a few days before the rule is set to take effect.
FTC spokesman Douglas Farrar said the agency stands by its "clear authority" to issue the rule.
"We will keep fighting to free hardworking Americans from unlawful noncompetes, which reduce innovation, inhibit economic growth, trap workers, and undermine Americans’ economic liberty," Farrar said in a statement.
Daryl Joseffer, chief counsel of the Chamber's litigation arm, called the ruling "a big win in the Chamber’s fight against government micromanagement of business decisions."
"The FTC’s blanket ban on noncompetes is an unlawful power grab that defies the agency’s constitutional and statutory authority," he said.
The Democratic-controlled FTC approved the ban on noncompete agreements in a 3-2 vote in May. The commission and supporters of the rule say the agreements are an unfair restraint on competition that violate U.S. antitrust law and suppress workers' wages and mobility.
California, Minnesota, Oklahoma and North Dakota have already banned noncompete agreements, and at least a dozen other states have passed laws limiting their use. The FTC's rule would be the first nationwide prohibition of noncompetes.
Business groups and many Republicans say that noncompetes are a crucial tool for businesses to protect trade secrets, confidential information and their investments in recruiting and training workers.
Ryan and the Chamber claim in their lawsuits that the FTC did not have the authority to adopt the ban and that Congress granted the agency only limited rulemaking powers.
The FTC has argued that noncompetes inherently violate antitrust laws by curbing competition between businesses to recruit workers, and banning them falls within the agency's broad powers to police anti-competitive conduct.
Brown on Wednesday said the rule was likely invalid because the FTC had not justified the sweeping, near-total ban.
"It imposes a one-size-fits-all approach with no end date, which fails to establish a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made," the judge wrote.
The FTC is also facing a challenge to its rule in Philadelphia federal court by a Pennsylvania-based tree trimming company. A judge has scheduled a July 10 hearing on the company's motion to temporarily block the rule.
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Rod Nickel, Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
