to challenge the noncompete agreements ban, arguing that it would make it difficult for companies to retain talent.
Sounds like a admission that the opposition to the ban is to promote corporate servitude, discourage lateral movement in a chosen field, and protect companies from having to consider employee satisfaction in order to keep them. Somehow Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas thinks allowing people to have control over their own career would “cause irreparable harm.”
I wonder who Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas thinks would be harmed by this.
Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas and member of such conservative historical organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Mayflower Society, and the Federalist Society, is also credited with
saying the noncompete agreements ban is “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation,”
Did she read the 570 pages of the final rule which starts explaining the reason for the rule on page 5 including studies, public commentary, detrimental impact on innovation, conflicts with antitrust laws, concerns of the US courts going back to 1711. Sounds like a lot of readable explanations to me.
Per the article, from a previous challenge:
Sounds like a admission that the opposition to the ban is to promote corporate servitude, discourage lateral movement in a chosen field, and protect companies from having to consider employee satisfaction in order to keep them. Somehow Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas thinks allowing people to have control over their own career would “cause irreparable harm.”
I wonder who Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas thinks would be harmed by this.
Trump appointed US District Judge Ada Brown of Texas and member of such conservative historical organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Mayflower Society, and the Federalist Society, is also credited with
Did she read the 570 pages of the final rule which starts explaining the reason for the rule on page 5 including studies, public commentary, detrimental impact on innovation, conflicts with antitrust laws, concerns of the US courts going back to 1711. Sounds like a lot of readable explanations to me.