Non-poaching clauses are among the types of contractual clauses for which simplicity is not necessarily the best approach. Simplicity can work against the employer`s intent by not responding to the specific circumstances of the employee or advisor. To speak to a specialized contract lawyer who advises on restrictive alliances and non-poaching clauses, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call us on 44 20 7036 9282 for a first chat. Not too many subjects related to restrictive alliances get a buzzworthy status. However, when government and federal authorities and class advocates start filing complaints nationally, and Fortune 500 companies in different sectors begin to establish themselves and agree to change the way they do business, well, that usually generates some excitement and attention. It seems that not a week has happened lately without a new title being discussed on the most recent hot topic in the world of restrictive alliances – the “No Poaching” agreement. Another plaintiff, Ying-Liang Wang, claims to want to move from Saks to Gucci. She claims that a Gucci Store manager told her that she would be a “perfect fit” but that she could not “technically recruit” Wang. Wang contacted Prada to find an opportunity.
She claims that a Prada CEO told her that Prada had “an agreement with Saks” not to recruit luxury retailers in Saks. Employers who enter into non-poaching agreements with their competitors continue to risk civil and criminal liability for cartels and abuse of dominance. In addition, employers who have contractual non-employment or non-recruitment agreements with their employees run the risk that these provisions will be found to be unenforceable. For employers, especially those in Indiana, it is essential to review these agreements and, if necessary, update them. I have previously written about the anti-Russian problem, and it remains important for HR professionals to understand the obligations that employers have under federal cartel laws, so that they can avoid these types of agreements. At about the same time in 2016, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission jointly submitted written guidelines entitled “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals.” In this guide, it was found that non-proliferation agreements between employers were inherently illegal in terms of cartels and abuse of dominance and provided a number of questions and answers to HR specialists.