In one of its first rulings of the 2012-13 term, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an opinion involving arbitration of noncompete agreements.
In Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, the High Court ruled that the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to adhere to a correct interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The U.S. Supreme Court decision vacated the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision, which had determined that noncompete agreements in two employment contracts were null and void. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was for an arbitrator—not the state court—to decide whether the covenants-not-to-compete were valid as a matter of state law. (Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, No. 11–1377, U.S. Supreme Court, 2012)
The underlying decision involved two employees, Eddie Lee Howard and Shane D. Schneider, who worked for Nitro-Lift Technologies, a nitrogen-generating company with opera...(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- To claim discrimination, worker must cite 'adverse action'--not just an upsetting one
- HR as mobsters: Supreme Court lets workers use organized-Crime law to sue their employers
- How state's new trade-secret law protects Texas businesses
- Interpret Military Leave Law in Most Employee-Friendly Way