Click here to view recorded webcast
Click here to view presentation slides
Preventing franchisees' employees from being hired by other franchisees.
A Sept. 27, 2017 front-page New York Times headline read: “Why Aren’t Paychecks Growing? A Burger-Joint Clause Offers a Clue.” The writer interviewed economists and a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, and concluded that anti-poaching clauses in franchise agreements may be responsible for stagnant wages in the U.S. The economists identified 90 franchisors having 500+ outlets that have anti-poaching language.
Last week, the Washington AG issued Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to many franchisors, which requires information about their anti-poaching agreements and practices. The Washington AG has not disclosed the purpose of his investigation or whether he is or will be coordinating his efforts with other state AGs.
Recent proclamations by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and four class action lawsuits filed during the last few months against prominent franchising organizations are further reasons to re-evaluate anti-poaching language in franchise agreements, and to decide if their use warrants the heightened risk of litigation.
Join Gray Plant Mooty attorneys Quentin Wittrock and Carl Zwisler for a 30-minute webinar, where they will discuss:
Gray Plant Mooty is recognized as one of the leading corporate law firms in Minnesota and one of the top franchise firms in the world. Our roots go back to 1866. Today, we are a full-service firm with nearly 180 attorneys and offices in Minneapolis and St. Cloud, Minnesota; Washington, D.C.; and Fargo, North Dakota.