.

Chair, Employment Law

Chair, School Leaders' Liability

Portrait of Lee C. Durivage

Defense Digest

The Federal Trade Commission’s Proposed Evisceration of Non-Compete Agreements – What the Proposed Rule Means for Employers

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2023

March 1, 2023

by Lee C. Durivage

Key Points:

  • The Federal Trade Commission is proposing to bar virtually all non-compete agreements between employees and employers.
  • The FTC’s proposed rule would not only prohibit non-compete agreements moving forward, but it would affirmatively require employers to rescind existing agreements and provide notice to employees that they have been rescinded.
  • The FTC’s proposed rule is the next step in the FTC’s current policy of investigating employers who utilize restrictive covenant agreements (including non-compete and non-solicitation agreements) and then subjecting those employers to civil penalties and the attorneys’ fees incurred in defending an action brought by the federal government.

In January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a Rule that would prohibit employers from utilizing most non-compete agreements with its employees. In the FTC’s view, this Rule reflects the FTC’s current enforcement policies and belief that “by suppressing labor mobility, non-compete clauses have negatively affected competition,” and “allow[ed] serious anticompetitive harm to labor, product, and service markets to go unchecked.”

In support of these findings, the FTC estimated that approximately one in five American workers (or approximately 30 million workers) are currently bound by non-compete clauses. In proposing its Rule, the FTC reviewed the current legal landscape of non-compete agreements at the state level, confirming that three states have barred non-compete agreements altogether, 11 states (and the District of Columbia) have barred non-compete agreements based on the salary level of the employee involved, and a number of other states have barred or limited the enforcement of non-complete agreements in certain specified occupations. In the FTC’s view, non-compete agreements negatively impact the wages of employees and harm the economy as a whole.

Ultimately, the proposed Rule states that “it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of [the Federal Trade Commission Act]—for an employer to enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; maintain with a worker a non-compete clause; or, under certain circumstances, represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.” The FTC also noted in its notice of proposed rulemaking that certain other restrictive covenant agreements with employees, namely, confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements, may be “de facto” non-compete agreements. In addition to barring non-compete agreements moving forward, the Rule would require employees to affirmatively rescind existing non-compete agreements with its employees. Failure to comply with these provisions would subject employers to penalties and investigatory action by the FTC.

The notice of proposed rulemaking requests comments on a variety of topics, including whether there is (or should be) a difference in non-compete agreements with senior executives versus other lower level employees. Either way, the FTC indicated that these type of agreements should be prohibited for virtually all employees.

While the proposed Rule is currently awaiting public comment and the enforcement period will not be applicable until late 2023 (at the earliest), proponents for and those against the rule are already gearing up for the legal challenges that would inevitably be filed to the Rule. Of course, even with those anticipated legal challenges, employers should be prepared to review their existing agreements to determine whether they would (a) be subject to this Rule and (b) be subject to other types of enforcement by the FTC. Indeed, even without this Rule in place, the FTC has been clear in its policy statements that non-compete agreements and other types of restrictive covenants constitute an unfair method of competition and violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, and they have routinely taken action to bar the enforcement of these restrictive covenants against employees. This Rule would have no impact on the FTC’s continued investigation of employers who utilize non-compete agreements.

As it stands now, employers should continue to monitor the rulemaking process and be prepared to rescind non-compete agreements if this Rule takes effect. In addition, considering the current makeup of the FTC and its policy initiatives, employers should consult with legal counsel to determine whether there is a risk of potential exposure with respect to their current employment agreements. Employers will need to justify the scope and business necessity of these agreements, including standard non-solicitation, non-poaching, and confidentiality agreements, to avoid the perception that these agreements will impair a former employee’s ability to obtain a new position. Failure to do so now may lead to an enforcement action by the FTC, with attendant penalties and attorney’s fees.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.