U.S. bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobs
U.S. bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobs
17 comments
-
Our supreme court is packed with corporate lackeys. As much as I love this, it'll be overturned. It is a move in the right direction - you should not be allowed to take away someone's right to move jobs.
-
It's been issued by the FTC. I'm not sure if the courts are the mechanism to challenge this. Maybe in implementation. But not so much in overturning the policy.
-
It is the mechanism. They're already suing: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/chamber-of-commerce-sues-to-block-ftcs-non-compete-ban
-
It looks like they are suing them. Let's hope they take as long as they take with Trump. I am also not sure if suing them makes them financially liable or removes the stature? The article doesn't say much other than lobbyists (fuckin waste of space) are suing the FTC.
-
-
A challenge to the FTC rule would ultimately lead to a potential Supreme Court case. The court is currently deciding on a case that could render render this decision moot before it ever gets that far.
-
Yes. It's an appeal. However it's still on the company to provide just cause for it to be removed. The way I am reading the mechanism it still favors the workers unless the company can provide just cause. It seems a NDA is more fitting in almost all cases.
-
-
It is the appropriate mechanism. It's administrative law, and is subject to judicial review of the agency's conformity with lawful rule making
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
And SCOTUS is going to kill chevron deference later this year, which will largely destroy the administrative state and ability for federal agencies to promulgate and enforce regulations
Summary
Chevron and Skidmore deference are foundational concepts in administrative law, guiding how courts interact with administrative agency decisions.
Chevron Deference is based on the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine holds that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers if the interpretation is reasonable. This two-step process asks first whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
Skidmore Deference derived from the 1944 Supreme Court case Skidmore v. Swift & Co., offers a more flexible approach. It suggests that the weight given to an agency's judgment depends on factors such as the thoroughness of the agency's investigation, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and other persuasive factors.
Comparing Deference Types
The key difference between the two is the degree of deference accorded. Chevron provides a more robust deference when statutory language is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Skidmore deference, on the other hand, is less prescriptive and more suggestive, relying heavily on the persuasiveness of the agency's rationale.
Practical Effects of Abolishing Chevron Deference
If the Supreme Court were to abolish Chevron deference, the immediate effect would be a shift in how courts review agency interpretations of law:
- Increased Judicial Scrutiny: Courts would likely increase scrutiny of agency decisions, possibly leading to less predictable and more variable interpretations of laws across different jurisdictions.
- Impact on Agencies: Agencies might experience a decrease in their ability to effectively implement and enforce regulations, as their expertise and interpretations would carry less weight in legal disputes.
- Legislative Clarity: Congress might face pressure to draft more precise legislation to avoid ambiguities that agencies currently resolve.
- Legal Uncertainty: Initially, the abolition of Chevron could lead to increased litigation as parties challenge agency interpretations that would have previously been upheld under Chevron deference.
-
-
17 comments