National Labor Relations Board General Counsel (“GC”) Jennifer Abruzzo recently issued Memorandum GC 25-01 (“Memorandum”), suggesting new remedies for non-competes found to violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and proposing that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) presume “stay-or-pay” provisions to be unlawful.  Although the Memorandum is not binding law, employers should expect GC Abruzzo to direct the NLRB’s regional offices to bring complaints and seek remedies consistent with the Memorandum.  The NLRA generally only extends protections to nonsupervisory and nonmanagerial employees, and therefore the Memorandum is not applicable to non-compete or stay-or-pay provisions for employees who are supervisors or managers under the NLRA. 

Make-Whole Relief for Unlawful Non-Competes

Part I of the Memorandum expands upon a May 2023 memo in which GC Abruzzo outlined her position that, except in limited circumstances, non-compete provisions violate the NLRA.  In the new memo, GC Abruzzo asserts that the financial harms for employees subject to unlawful non-competes extend beyond costs associated with discipline or legal action and include “more pernicious harms” associated with attempted compliance, such as foregoing higher-paying job opportunities or incurring relocation costs.  Arguing that rescission—the typical remedy for offending non-compete provisions—fails to address these harms, GC Abruzzo proposes “make-whole relief” for employees impacted by unlawful non-competes.  Make-whole relief would include any wage and benefits differential caused by the non-compete restriction; costs of finding new employment that complied with the non-compete, such as lost wages due to being out of work longer or accepting a lower-paying job, or moving or retraining costs; and legal fees associated with defending against a claim regarding an unlawful non-compete. 

“Stay-or-Pay” Provisions Framework

Part II of the Memorandum proposes that the NLRB adopt a new framework for assessing so-called “stay-or-pay” provisions, to presume that any such provision is unlawful regardless of whether it was entered into voluntarily.  Stay-or-pay provisions are “any contract under which an employee must pay their employer if they separate from employment” and include training or educational repayment provisions, quit fees, damages clauses, and sign-on-bonuses or other types of cash payments tied to a mandatory stay period.

The Memorandum explains that stay-or-pay provisions should be presumed unlawful because they interfere with rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the NLRA.  Specifically, GC Abruzzo asserts that by creating an increased financial risk associated with termination, employees are chilled from engaging in protected activity to better their working conditions.  However, the Memorandum proposes that an employer could overcome the presumption that a stay-or-pay provision is unlawful by meeting this four part test:

  • The provision was voluntarily entered into in exchange for a benefit.  If the benefit is a training that is mandatory or a condition of employment, then any repayment provision would not be voluntary.  By contrast, if the repayment is for third-party training for a credential needed for promotion, for a third-party course to obtain or maintain a credential, or for an educational degree, such repayment obligations can be voluntary.  Employers should specify the voluntary nature of the arrangement in the related contract.  If the repayment obligation is for a cash payment like a relocation stipend or sign-on bonus, such payments are only voluntary if the employee is given the option of taking the payment up front or deferring receipt of the payment until the end of the stay period. 
  • The repayment is reasonable and specific.  The repayment cannot be more than the cost to the employer of the benefit bestowed, and the employer must inform the employee of the repayment amount before the employee assumes the stay requirement. 
  • The stay period is “reasonable”.  The Memorandum does not provide examples of reasonable durations for stay periods, but suggests that where the cost of the benefit is greater, the stay period may be longer.  Additionally, if an employer prorates the repayment obligation on a monthly or quarterly basis, that would weigh in favor of the stay period being reasonable. 
  • There is no repayment if the employee is terminated without cause.

Similar to Part I, the Memorandum proposes make-whole remedies for unlawful stay-or-pay provisions, with remedies depending on whether the provision was entered into voluntarily, whether the employer has attempted to enforce the provision, and whether (like a non-compete) the provision denied the employee a better employment opportunity, as follows:

  • Entered into voluntarily.  The employer should rescind the offending provision and may replace it with a lawful one.  For example, the replacement provision could reduce the repayment cost to mirror the employer cost, reduce the stay period, and/or clarify that no repayment is required on a termination without cause.
  • Entered into involuntarily.  The employer should rescind the provision and notify employees of the rescission and that any debt has been nullified and will not be enforced.
  • Employer attempted to enforce.  The employer should retract the enforcement action and make the employee whole for any financial harms resulting from the enforcement attempt, to include compensation for any repayments made by an employee, reimbursement for any legal or other fees incurred defending the employer’s action, and remedying any additional financial harms.
  • Prevented employment opportunities.  Like for non-competes, the employer should compensate any employees who were deprived of better job opportunities given the constraints of the stay-or-pay provision for the difference in terms of pay or benefits.  The employee must show there was a vacancy available for a job with a better compensation package, they were qualified for the job, and they were discouraged from applying for or accepting the job because of the stay-or-pay provision.

It is also important to note that for existing stay-or-pay provisions, the Memorandum states that employers have 60 days, or until December 6, 2024, to cure any defects as specified above, and the NLRB will begin bringing enforcement actions after this 60-day period.  The cure period does not extend to stay-or-pay arrangements entered into after October 7, 2024.

Looking Ahead

Although the new Memorandum is not binding law, employers should anticipate that the NLRB and its regional offices will further scrutinize non-competes and stay-or-pay provisions.  Consistent with GC Abruzzo’s May 2023 memo, earlier this year an NLRB Administrative Law Judge ruled that non-compete and non-solicitation provisions violated the NLRA.  And as a prelude to this Memorandum, in February the NLRB Region 9 obtained a settlement involving non-compete and training repayment provisions.  As such, and particularly in light of the 60-day cure period for stay-or-pay provisions, employers should take stock of their current restrictive covenant agreements and carefully weigh the benefits and risks associated with revising existing agreements or entering into any new arrangements.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Lindsay Burke Lindsay Burke

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with…

Lindsay Burke co-chairs the firm’s Employment Practice Group and regularly advises U.S., international, and multinational employers on employee management and culture issues and international HR compliance. She is a key member of the firm’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility practice, working together with white collar colleagues to conduct culture assessments, internal investigations of executive misconduct, and civil rights and racial equity audits and assessments. Lindsay has been at the forefront of the changing workplace issues impacting employers in the U.S. in the last decade, including #MeToo, Covid-19, and the renewed focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She frequently advises employers in relation to their processes and procedures for investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and trains executive teams and board members on culture risk and the lawful implementation of DEI programs.

Lindsay also guides employers through the process of hiring and terminating employees and managing their performance, including the drafting and review of employment agreements, restrictive covenant agreements, separation agreements, performance plans, and key employee policies and handbooks. She provides practical advice against the backdrop of the web of state and federal employment laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the False Claims Act, with the objective of minimizing the risk of employee litigation. When litigation looms, Lindsay relies on her experience as an employment litigator to offer employers strategic advice and assistance in responding to demand letters and agency charges.

Lindsay works frequently with the firm’s privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups. She also regularly provides U.S. employment law training, support, and assistance to start-ups, non-profits, and foreign parent companies opening affiliates in the U.S.

Photo of Evan Parness Evan Parness

Evan represents employers and senior executives in non-compete, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, ERISA, and business tort litigation in state and federal courts, administrative agencies, and alternative dispute resolution bodies. He has secured significant trial and appellate victories for clients, including complete dismissals of discrimination…

Evan represents employers and senior executives in non-compete, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, ERISA, and business tort litigation in state and federal courts, administrative agencies, and alternative dispute resolution bodies. He has secured significant trial and appellate victories for clients, including complete dismissals of discrimination and retaliation lawsuits, successful verdicts following trial, and injunctive relief on behalf of clients enforcing restrictive covenants.

Evan also counsels established and emerging companies on compliance with federal, state, and local employment laws and regulations, and litigation avoidance measures in connection with all aspects of workplace employment issues. He conducts sensitive internal investigations of alleged discrimination and harassment, and assists employers in shaping workplace policies to comply with law and promote a productive working environment.

Evan advises leading companies on the labor and employment aspects of significant business transactions and acquisitions. He negotiates employment-related provisions in business transaction documents and oversees due diligence of a potential target’s employment practices. He also counsels clients on executive employment and restrictive covenants agreements.

Chambers USA notes “Evan is an exceptional and talented lawyer. He possesses a deep understanding of the law and an unwavering commitment to his clients. He has a keen eye for detail and can dissect complex legal issues with remarkable efficiency. His thorough and methodical approach to each case ensures that no stone is left unturned, providing his clients with the best possible legal representation.”

The Legal 500 US notes that clients have commented that “Evan Parness is an amazing attorney. Always attentive and will take instructions outside of business hours, he is always there when we need him and looks for the best outcome for clients.”

Photo of Carolyn Rashby Carolyn Rashby

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.…

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.

As a senior member of Covington’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Group, Carolyn has co-led significant investigations into workplace culture, DEI issues, and reports of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment.

As an employment lawyer with over two decades of experience, Carolyn focuses on a wide range of compliance and regulatory matters for employers, including:

  • Conducting audits regarding employee classification and pay equity
  • Advising on employment issues arising in corporate transactions
  • Strategic counseling on a wide range of issues including discrimination and harassment, wages and hours, worker classification, workplace accommodations and leave management, performance management and termination decisions, workplace violence, employment agreements, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, employee handbooks, and personnel policies
  • Drafting employment contracts and offer letters, separation agreements, NDAs, and other employment agreements
  • Advising on employee privacy matters, including under the California Consumer Privacy Act
  • Providing guidance on use of AI in the workplace and development of related policies
  • Leading anti-harassment and other workplace-related trainings, for employees, executives, and boards

Carolyn also works frequently with the firm’s white collar, privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups.

Photo of Jenna Wallace Jenna Wallace

Jenna Wallace advises clients on all aspects of employee benefits and executive compensation. Her practice covers a broad spectrum of plans and arrangements, such as:

  • tax-qualified retirement plans, including traditional and hybrid pension plans, 401(k) plans, and profit-sharing plans;
  • health and welfare plans,

Jenna Wallace advises clients on all aspects of employee benefits and executive compensation. Her practice covers a broad spectrum of plans and arrangements, such as:

  • tax-qualified retirement plans, including traditional and hybrid pension plans, 401(k) plans, and profit-sharing plans;
  • health and welfare plans, including medical, disability, cafeteria and severance plans;
  • equity-based compensation, including stock options, restricted stock, profits interests and phantom equity;
  • nonqualified deferred compensation plans;
  • employment, consulting and restrictive covenant agreements; and
  • international employment arrangements.

Jenna guides employers with respect to the administration of 401(k) and pension plans (including standards applicable to the investment of ERISA-covered assets), the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, management employment and equity arrangements, employee separations and international employment issues. Jenna also advises public and private companies in connection with mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions, and advises private funds regarding investments by public and private employee benefit plans.

Jenna has an active pro bono practice, with a focus on assisting organizations working in Africa and other parts of the developing world.

Photo of Teresa Lewi Teresa Lewi

Teresa Lewi represents and counsels companies on a wide range of federal, state, and local employment laws. She focuses her practice on trade secrets, non-competition, executive compensation, separation, employee mobility, discrimination, workplace privacy, and wage-and-hour issues.

Teresa represents clients in the life sciences…

Teresa Lewi represents and counsels companies on a wide range of federal, state, and local employment laws. She focuses her practice on trade secrets, non-competition, executive compensation, separation, employee mobility, discrimination, workplace privacy, and wage-and-hour issues.

Teresa represents clients in the life sciences, technology, financial services, sports, and entertainment industries. She has successfully tried cases in federal and state courts, and has resolved numerous disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods. In particular, Teresa has helped companies achieve highly favorable outcomes in high-stakes disputes over the protection of trade secrets and enforcement of agreements with employees. In addition, she defends companies against public accommodation and website accessibility claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Teresa also conducts specialized internal investigations and assessments designed to help companies protect their confidential information and trade secrets from employee misappropriation and cybersecurity incidents.

Photo of Zachary Agudelo Zachary Agudelo

Zach Agudelo is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and is a member of the firm’s Employment, Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, and Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Groups. He routinely advises clients on a range of labor, employment, and…

Zach Agudelo is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and is a member of the firm’s Employment, Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, and Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Groups. He routinely advises clients on a range of labor, employment, and employee benefits related issues, including wage and hour compliance, job classifications, restrictive covenants, workplace policies, incentive plans, and executive compensation. His practice also includes employment- and employee benefits-related diligence and advise in corporate transactions.

In addition, Zach assists both private and non-profit clients with matters involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other issues arising under state and federal employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also has extensive experience conducting civil rights and racial equity assessments for corporations and advises clients on the lawful design of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.