Understanding Employment Law

Huge news for anyone working in tech in the US: noncompetes will be banned: not just in California (like before), but nationwide. This is very, very relevant for anyone at Amazon (which is the Big Tech that has enforced noncompetes even for low-level engineering positions). But it's just as relevant at other companies that (outside California) added noncompetes to contracts. Other countries should take notice. The FTC has correctly determined that noncompetes is bad for the economy: although undeniably good for businesses that want to keep wages lower, and enforce lower attrition. If you read the ruling closer: there is an exception where noncompetes can remain for executives. The regulation defines as an executive as those making more than $151K/year AND being policy makers. Many senior-and-above individual contributors will make more than this (especially in Big Tech). But they are not policymakers/execs! That's usually Director-and-above. The regulation is expected to be in effect in a bit over 4 months' time. During this time, organizations can sue the FTC to get this reversed: and the US National Chamber of Commerce has immediately announced they will do just this. Still, there's now a very real chance that soon, noncompetes will be a thing of the past for almost all US workers. We've seen what happened in states that did this earlier: California is the hotbed of innovation and startups. It also has a ban on noncompetes. Coincidence? The FTC doesn't seem to think so. Other countries (that still have noncompetes allowed) could well take notice. The FTC ruling source: https://lnkd.in/dFeVcXwr

A case law every IT professional must read, understand and implement. Varun Tyagi, a skilled software engineer, worked on the POSHAN Tracker project, a high-priority initiative of the Government of India, through his employer, Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd. Over time, thanks to his dedication and the company’s own training, he was promoted and made a lead developer on the project. After serving his full notice period and resigning properly, Varun received an offer to join Digital India Corporation (DIC), the very agency for which he was already contributing his work. This was a natural next step in his career. He accepted the offer and joined them. But what happened next is something many IT professionals never expect. Varun was dragged to court by his former employer. They claimed he had violated the non-compete clause in his employment agreement. According to the company, Varun couldn’t work with any of their clients or business associates, even after leaving the job, for the next three years. They claimed he could misuse confidential information, even though all intellectual property rights of the project belonged to DIC, not the company. The trial court sided with the employer and passed an order restraining Varun from working with DIC. Imagine leaving your job legally, only to be told by a court that you can’t join your new employer. Varun didn’t give up. He challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, and justice prevailed. On June 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in Varun’s favour and quashed the injunction. The court made it clear: 1. Any clause that restricts an employee from working elsewhere after resignation is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2. Companies cannot impose post-employment restrictions on someone’s right to earn a living. 3. Confidentiality concerns cannot be misused to block fair career progression. 4. Non-compete clauses that extend beyond the term of employment have no place under Indian law. Have you ever read the non-compete clause in your employment agreement? Chances are, it’s already there. In fact, almost all IT companies include such clauses in standard offer letters, and most employees, especially freshers and juniors, sign without knowing the legal consequences. This is where exploitation begins. Companies bank on your silence, your fear of legal trouble, and your unawareness. But the law is clear. Your right to earn, to switch jobs, and to grow cannot be curtailed just because you once worked with a client. Employees should read, question, and understand your employment terms. And more importantly, should know that the law is on your side. Your career is yours, not your former employer’s property. #ITEmployees #LabourLaw #NonCompeteClause #EmployeeRights #EmploymentLaw #DelhiHighCourt #RightToWork #KnowYourRights

Last week, a tech employee messaged me in tears. Her company was trying to force her out right before her $380,000 in stock options vested. Their tactics? Suddenly 'discovering' performance issues after 3 years of stellar reviews. Here's how we protected her equity: First thing we did: 1. Documented everything. •Screenshot every positive review •Saved every performance metric •Archived every congratulatory email •Backed up every team recognition 2. Built a paper trail. We responded to every new "performance concern" in writing: "To confirm our discussion about [issue] today, I've consistently exceeded targets as shown in [specific metrics]..." 3. Identified the pattern. The timing wasn't coincidental: •"Issues" appeared 90 days before vesting •Previously undocumented concerns •Sudden increase in scrutiny •Rush to put her on a performance plan The result? When we presented this evidence showing clear targeting before vesting, they backed off. She got her shares. Every. Single. One. Know Your Legal Protections: Employees have legal protections against terminations designed to prevent stock vesting, though laws vary by state: 1. California: Treats equity as wages, making it illegal to fire employees solely to prevent vesting. 2. Other States: Many uphold good faith employment practices, preventing firings designed to avoid payouts. 3. State courts have awarded damages when terminations were in bad faith. Key lesson: The moment performance issues arise near vesting dates, start documenting. Your equity is a legally protected right, not a corporate favor. Remember: Companies count on you not knowing your rights or being too scared to fight back. Don't let them win. Follow for more corporate tactics exposed and how to protect yourself. #EmploymentLaw #StockOptions #WorkplaceRights Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and does not replace professional legal advice. It does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

You may have to pay Rs 2 lakhs to your employer if you leave before completing three years in your job… People will now not be able to leave jobs as easily they were doing earlier because of a Supreme Court order that has just come in… Earlier, whenever a company would make you sign an employment bond that would say you can’t leave the company before you complete a tenure of say 1-3 years… And if you do, you would have to pay an amount under a bond… Most matters that would go to court would be in favour of the employees because of Section 27 of the Contract Act saying that it was “in the restraint of trade” and thus void, and “opposed to public policy” as per section 23. But now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in essence has said that if the bond aims to recover training fees spent on training the employee on a skill of a reasonable amount as liquidated damages if the person leaves before the company can get benefit of their services from the training… And the period is reasonable, with the amount to be recovered not unreasonable, or not to penalise the employee but only to recover the cost of training, then such clauses will be valid and not “in restraint of trade”. While the case was for a Vijaya Bank employee (PSU employer), we may now see a number of private companies enforcing these clauses too. The SC found reaosnability in a 3 year Bond with a value of Rs 2 lakhs in this case… “The ₹2 lakh amount was not arbitrary or punitive; it reflected tangible losses such as recruitment and training costs, disruption in operations, and administrative restructuring.” So for employees, do not take these clauses lightly anymore, and for employers, ensure that the cost being recovered can be justified and the period is from 6 months to 3 years, and no longer. Of course, each case will be examined on its own merit but you cannot blindly assume that these clauses for bonds are non enforceable. The case is Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware… and the court relied on the precedent set in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. #casarthakahuja

“Dia masih probation, boleh buang macam tu je.” Hold up—not so fast. Just because someone is on probation, doesn’t mean you can terminate them on a whim. Yes, probationers aren’t confirmed yet—but they are still employees under the law. And yes, they deserve due process. Want to terminate a probationer fairly? Then assess them. Give them feedback. Document their performance. Provide support and a chance to improve. Because if you’ve never discussed their “underperformance,” never reviewed their work, never warned them—and suddenly decide they’re “not suitable”… That’s not HR. That’s poor leadership. And the courts agree. In Kumarasamy A/L Velupillai v. Agrobank (Award No. 718 of 2016), the Industrial Court held that a probationer was unfairly dismissed because the employer failed to conduct any performance review or provide feedback before termination. In Tan Teck Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] 1 MLJ 261, the Court of Appeal emphasized that natural justice applies to all employees—including those on probation. And in K. Annamalai v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd [1998] 3 CLJ Supp 812, the court stated clearly: “A probationer is entitled to a fair opportunity to show his capabilities… The employer must assess the performance before deciding on suitability.” So if your team doesn’t have a proper probation review process, the problem isn’t the employee. It’s your system. Remember: Even probationers can file claims for unjust dismissal—and many have won. So before you issue that termination letter, ask yourself: Did we assess, or did we just assume? Faithfully, Makcik Labor ☺️

This is a claim to watch out for if you're thinking of dismissing an employee before they reach 6 months of employment (or 12 months for small businesses). 👇 Here's how it works: 👉 A person gets protection from unfair dismissal once they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱. That's 6 months if you have 15 or more employees and 12 months if you have less than 15.    👉 Being able to initiate or participate in unfair dismissal proceedings is a workplace right.    👉 It's unlawful to dismiss an employee if a substantial and operative reason for doing so is to prevent them from exercising a workplace right.    👉 Therefore, if you dismiss an employee before they have completed the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 because you want to prevent them from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim, they can claim that you've taken unlawful adverse action against them in breach of the Fair Work Act. The potential for this claim was first raised in the Qantas outsourcing case that ended up in the High Court a few years ago. The issue there was whether it's unlawful to take adverse action against someone to prevent the exercise of a workplace right that hasn't arisen yet but could do in the future. Qantas used this unfair dismissal scenario as an example to argue why future workplace rights shouldn't be protected. They argued that doing so would thwart the statutory intention that employees aren’t entitled to remedies for unfair dismissal before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. The majority dismissed that argument and, in doing so, left the door open for employees to bring this type of claim. After that we all thought that it's probably not a good idea to dismiss someone the day before the 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 ends. Well, somebody did. And it ended up in the Federal Court. Actually, they did it at 4:40pm the day before, which, as the Court pointed out, was about 7 hours before the employee became protected from unfair dismissal. They made the decision to terminate in a hastily organised executive committee meeting and before an investigation report into the conduct of the employee had been finalised. It had all the hallmarks of a rushed dismissal to prevent the employee from gaining unfair dismissal rights. The Court found that it gave rise to a prima facie case of unlawful adverse action and reinstated the employee pending a final hearing. This was an interim decision only, but the idea that a dismissal like this could amount to unlawful adverse action was accepted without question in the reasons for judgment. The proceedings were discontinued soon after, so we never got a final decision. So this is a potential claim to be mindful of. The decision was 𝘋𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘺 𝘷 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘴 [2024] FCA 1074. ♻️  Please repost this if it would help others. #humanresources #employmentlaw

Hiring international students in the U.S. is complicated, expensive, and not worth the effort. This is a huge misconception - and one I hear from founders and hiring managers all the time. When I graduated from Harvard Law School, I faced the same issue - and now that I am building a legaltech startup, I want employers to understand how straightforward it can actually be to hire international students. Here's how it works: CPT (Curricular Practical Training) - Work authorization for someone during their degree program (commonly used for internships or co-ops) - Role must be directly related to the student’s field of study - No visa sponsorship required - Authorized by the university as part of the curriculum - Employment Authorization Document (EAD) NOT needed from USCIS - Note that using 12 months or more of full-time CPT employment disqualifies someone from receiving OPT work authorization Post-Completion OPT (12 months) - Full-time work authorization after graduation - Role must be directly related to the student’s field of study - No visa sponsorship required - Role can be paid or unpaid - Employment Authorization Document (EAD) needed from USCIS STEM OPT (additional 24 months) - Available for STEM designated majors approved by U.S. immigration - Extends work authorization for 2 years after the 1 year of OPT, for a total of 3 years - Role should be related to the degree and must be paid - No visa sponsorship required - E-Verify enrollment and a training plan needed - Employment Authorization Document (EAD) needed from USCIS These give you immediate access to talent from top universities while everyone else competes for the same domestic talent - not to mention a runway before making a sponsorship decision. These students invested years and often six figures in a U.S. education. They're motivated, skilled, and ready to contribute. If you’re a founder, recruiter, or hiring manager trying to build a strong junior or mid-level team (especially in tech), this candidate pool should be on your radar.

Do you have a noncompete agreement at work? Depending on your job and responsibilities, it may soon become unenforceable—unless business groups successfully mount court challenges. The FTC's vote Tuesday to ban most noncompete agreements sets the stage for a fight between business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has already said it will sue, and supporters of a national rule, which include union groups and the Biden administration. One key change in the final rule announced today, my Forbes colleague Maria Gracia Santillana reports, is that existing noncompetes for "senior executives" will be allowed to remain in effect, while those that currently exist for everyone else will be unenforceable. Newly established noncompete agreements will be banned for everyone after the rule becomes effective. My bet: We'll see lots of attempts to interpret the definition of "senior executive." The FTC, Maria reports, says the term “senior executive” refers to those earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in a “policy-making position.” For more on how the FTC defines that, check out Maria's story below. #noncompetes

A major ruling just came out of the Calcutta High Court. It is about something every professional thinks about at some point: switching jobs. The court ruled that looking for a job in a rival company is a basic right of an employee. It does not amount to "moral turpitude." Here is why this matters. A technician worked for the same company for 10 years. He was accused of being in touch with a rival company. The company claimed he was helping competitors and forfeited his gratuity after firing him for misconduct. But the court saw it differently. They made it clear that searching for better opportunities does not go against honesty or good morals. The court ordered the company to pay his gratuity with 8% interest. This case sets a strong precedent. → Employees have the right to explore better opportunities without fear of punishment. → Loyalty does not mean being trapped. → Companies must focus on retention through respect and growth, not threats and penalties. The signal is loud and clear. Looking for a better job is not betrayal. It is self-respect.