为什么竞业限制协议可能面临风险
为什么竞业限制协议可能面临风险
在Ryan LLC v. FTC案中，美国德克萨斯州北区地方法院作出简易判决，撤销 2024 年 8 月 20 日联邦贸易委员会 (FTC)禁止雇主和工人之间竞业禁止条款的最终规定。另外两起挑战最终规定的案件的结果不太可能影响这一地位。FTC 就地区法院在Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC案中的禁令向第十一巡回法院提出上诉，该法院很可能会维持下级法院的判决。ATS Tree Service v. FTC案的原告在Ryan案判决后试图中止诉讼未果后自愿撤诉。然而，尽管存在这些案件，FTC 识别反竞争活动并逐案寻求执法机制的权力仍然没有受到挑战，并且完好无损。
现已被搁置的最终规则的措辞为理解联邦贸易委员会将如何逐案执行提供了关键。联邦贸易委员会认为雇主和雇员之间的竞业禁止协议是不公平的竞争手段，因此违反了《联邦贸易委员会法》（FTCA）第 5 条，该条禁止“不公平的竞争手段”和“不公平或欺骗性的行为或做法”。联邦贸易委员会的审查和执行可能会反映其在垄断或限制竞争协议案件中的执法程序。
联邦贸易委员会根据《联邦反垄断法》行使调查权联邦贸易委员会有权禁止其认为是不公平竞争的行为。以下场景高度说明了联邦贸易委员会针对一家公司的程序如何进行。
假设联邦贸易委员会怀疑假设的 XYZ 公司通过签订并试图执行一项过于宽泛的竞业禁止协议而从事不正当竞争手段，并决定展开调查。作为调查的一部分，联邦贸易委员会传唤 XYZ 公司出庭作证并提供书面证据。XYZ 公司最初拒绝遵守传票，直到联邦贸易委员会威胁行使其权力在适当的联邦地区法院寻求执行。
完成调查后，FTC 认定 XYZ 公司违反了法律，并提起了行政投诉。FTC 还发出了听证通知。XYZ 公司考虑是否出席听证会，出示证据为自己辩护，或与 FTC 达成和解协议，确认签署最终命令放弃司法审查，但不承认责任，以和解指控。最终的停止令将在 30 天内接受公众评论。
XYZ 公司认为其案子有说服力，并在行政法官 (ALJ) 面前出席听证会。ALJ 得出结论，有争议的竞业禁止协议构成不公平竞争手段，因为它阻止员工获得更好或更具竞争力的工资或寻找相关劳动力市场或行业的就业机会。ALJ 发布命令，要求 XYZ 公司停止并终止试图执行非法竞业禁止协议。
XYZ 公司在 ALJ 命令送达后的 60 天内向相应的上诉法院提出复审申请。虽然上诉法院必须接受 ALJ 的事实认定，但法院可以命令 FTC 收集更多证据。同样，任何一方都可以向法院申请允许除听证记录之外提供证据。在此假设中，上诉法院确认 ALJ 的决定，FTC 针对 XYZ 公司的停止令将成为最终的且可执行的。
即便如此，XYZ 公司仍然坚信其竞业禁止协议是合法的，并继续要求新员工签署该协议。它还继续威胁对其怀疑有意为竞争对手工作的员工执行竞业禁止协议。作为回应，联邦贸易委员会对每项违规行为处以 10,000 美元的民事罚款，美国司法部长在地区法院提起民事诉讼以追回罚款。地区法院命令 XYZ 公司支付罚款并以书面形式通知其员工竞业禁止协议无效且不可执行。
根据谢尔曼反垄断法提起刑事诉讼
虽然《联邦贸易法》没有为雇员提供私人诉讼权，但联邦贸易委员会和司法部 (DOJ) 可以联合起诉那些试图根据《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》执行非法竞业禁止协议的雇主。《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》规定，串谋限制贸易的重罪将受到严厉处罚，包括最高 1 亿美元的罚款或最高 10 年监禁。尽管联邦贸易委员会和司法部尚未根据《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》直接对竞业禁止协议提出质疑，但联邦贸易委员会和司法部已根据该法对相互签订“不挖角”或工资固定协议的雇主提起了多起刑事诉讼。司法部认为，不挖角和工资固定协议“以与固定产品价格或分配客户的协议同样不可挽回的方式消除竞争”，司法部将其类比为“硬核卡特尔行为”。
美国司法部根据《谢尔曼反垄断法》提起的刑事诉讼努力未能成功。迄今为止，美国司法部尚未就任何一项不挖角或操纵工资的起诉获得陪审团定罪。尽管如此，2023 年 3 月 31 日，美国司法部重申了起诉这些案件的意图，称其努力是“正义的”。美国司法部于 2023 年 11 月自愿撤销了其中最后一次诉讼。
与不挖角和工资固定协议一样，联邦贸易委员会认为竞业禁止协议是值得“正当”起诉的行为。司法部最近在一起民事集体诉讼案中提交了一份利益声明，质疑竞业禁止协议的使用是否构成反竞争垄断。我们预计，联邦贸易委员会将开始试水，在某些行业针对其认为具有反竞争性的竞业禁止协议启动调查和执法程序并提交利益声明。联邦贸易委员会将在实施逐案执法时考虑行业、员工级别、公司规模以及竞业禁止协议的范围和合理性。
我们继续鼓励雇主审查和更新竞业禁止协议，以便协议明确阐明雇主的受保护利益，将限制范围限制在狭窄的地理区域和合理的时间范围内，并且仅适用于特定个人。雇主还应记住，州竞业禁止法律可能适用。
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. FTC granted summary judgment “setting aside” the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Final Rule banning non-compete clauses between employers and workers on Aug. 20, 2024. The outcomes of two other cases challenging the Final Rule are unlikely to impact the status. The FTC appealed the district court’s injunction in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC to the Eleventh Circuit, which likely will affirm the lower court. The plaintiff in ATS Tree Service v. FTC voluntarily dismissed the case after unsuccessfully attempting to stay the litigation after the Ryan decision. Despite these cases, however, the FTC’s authority to identify anti-competitive activity and pursue enforcement mechanisms case-by-case remains unchallenged and intact.
The language of the now-set-aside Final Rule provides a key to understanding how the FTC will approach case-by-case enforcement. The FTC considers non-compete agreements between employers and employees to be unfair methods of competition and therefore violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The FTC’s review and enforcement likely will mirror its enforcement processes in cases of monopolization or agreements to limit competition.
FTC’s Investigative Authority Under FTCA
The FTC has the authority to prohibit conduct it believes to be an unfair method of competition. The following scenario provides a high-level illustration of how its process against a company can play out.
Imagine the FTC suspects that hypothetical XYZ Corp. engaged in unfair methods of competition by entering into and attempting to enforce an overbroad non-compete agreement and decides to investigate. As part of the investigation, the FTC subpoenas witnesses and documentary evidence from XYZ Corp. XYZ Corp. initially refuses to comply with the subpoena until the FTC threatens to exercise its authority to seek enforcement in the appropriate federal district court.
After completing its investigation, the FTC determines that XYZ Corp. violated the law and files an administrative complaint. The FTC also issues a notice of hearing. XYZ Corp. considers whether to appear at the hearing to present evidence in its defense or settle the charges by entering into a consent agreement with the FTC, confirming entry of a final order waiving judicial review, but not admitting liability. The final cease-and-desist order will be subject to public comment for 30 days.
XYZ Corp. decides it has a persuasive case and appears at the hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ concludes that the non-compete agreement at issue constituted an unfair method of competition because it prevented employees from obtaining better or more competitive wages or seeking employment in relevant labor markets or industries. The ALJ issues an order mandating XYZ Corp. cease and desist from attempting to enforce the unlawful non-compete agreement.
XYZ Corp. petitions for review with an appropriate court of appeals within 60 days of service of the ALJ’s order. While the court of appeals must accept the ALJ’s finding of fact, the court can order the FTC to collect additional evidence. Similarly, either party can petition the court for permission to present evidence in addition to the hearing record. In this hypothetical, the court of appeals affirms the ALJ’s decision and the FTC’s cease-and-desist order against XYZ Corp. becomes final and enforceable.
Even so, XYZ Corp. remains steadfast in its belief that its non-compete agreement is lawful and continues to require new employees to enter into the agreement. It also continues to threaten enforcement of the non-compete agreement against employees it suspects intend to work for competitors. In response, the FTC imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation, and the U.S. attorney general files a civil action in district court to recover the penalty. The district court orders XYZ Corp. to pay the imposed penalty and to notify its employees in writing that the non-compete agreement is void and unenforceable.
Criminal Prosecution Under Sherman Antitrust Act
While the FTCA does not provide employees with a private right of action, the FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ) together could prosecute employers who seek to enforce unlawful non-compete agreements under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Antitrust Act makes conspiracies to restrain trade felonies subject to significant penalties, including fines up to $100 million or up to 10 years in prison.
Although the FTC and the DOJ have yet to challenge non-compete agreements directly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the FTC and DOJ have pursued a number of criminal actions under the Act against employers who entered “no-poach” or wage-fixing agreements with one another. The DOJ argued that no-poach and wage fixing agreements “eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix products prices or allocate customers,” which the DOJ analogizes to “hardcore cartel conduct.”
The DOJ’s criminal prosecution efforts under the Sherman Antitrust Act have been unsuccessful. To date, the DOJ has not secured a single jury conviction on any of the no-poach or wage-fixing indictments. Despite this, on March 31, 2023, the DOJ reiterated its intention to prosecute these cases, characterizing its efforts as “righteous.” The DOJ voluntarily dismissed the last of these actions in November 2023.
As with no-poach and wage-fixing agreements, the FTC views non-compete agreements as the type of conduct worthy of “righteous” prosecutions. The DOJ recently filed a Statement of Interest in a civil class action case challenging the use of non-compete agreements as anti-competitive monopolization. We expect that the FTC will begin testing the waters by opening investigations and enforcement proceedings and filing Statements of Interest, in certain industries, with respect to non-compete agreements it believes are anti-competitive. The FTC will consider the industry, level of the employee, company size, and scope and reasonableness of the non-compete in effectuating case-by-case enforcement.
We continue to encourage employers to review and update non-compete agreements, such that the agreements clearly articulate the employer’s protectible interest, limit the scope of restrictions to a narrow geographic area and reasonable time frame, and apply only to select individuals. Employers should also remember that state non-compete laws may apply.
你可能还会感兴趣的话题：
扫码联系我们