Management Update

Volume 14, Issue 8

August 2025

The Status of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule in the Fifth Circuit

By Scott D. Wilson


The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a near comprehensive ban on non-compete clauses on May 7, 2024, in its final Non-Compete Clause Rule (“Non-Compete Rule”). The Non-Compete Rule was set to take effect on September 4, 2024. However, litigation halted the implementation of the Non-Compete Rule.


On August 20, 2024, in Ryan LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-cv-986 (N.D. Tex.), United States District Judge Ada Brown handed down an order with nationwide effect, setting aside the Non-Compete Rule. Judge Brown decided that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule, and she further deemed the Non-Compete Rule arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the district court’s order, the Non-Compete Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter. The FTC then appealed the district court’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


While the FTC appealed the ruling, the Trump administration has frozen the appeals. After designating Andrew N. Ferguson – a member of the FTC who voted against the Rule – as the new FTC chairman on the first day of his second term, President Trump and the federal government filed an unopposed motion to stay the appeal for 120 days on March 7, 2025. This motion is premised on a public statement by Chair Ferguson taking the position that the FTC may need to consider whether to continue defending the Non-Compete Rule. The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion on March 12, 2025, and the abeyance remained in effect until July 10, 2025, at which point the government was to provide an update to the court. The government filed a Status Report and unopposed motion to hold the appeal in abeyance for 60 additional days, citing “significant personnel changes, including the Senate confirmation of commissioner Mark Meador,” and promising a status report on September 8, 2025.  Unless and until the court of appeals orders otherwise, the district court’s order setting aside the Non-Compete Rule will remain in effect nationwide. Business and legal experts expect the government to abandon the appeal and/or rescind the Non-Compete Rule.


Aside from the ongoing litigation at the federal level, employers are still required to comply with state laws and regulations when utilizing non-compete agreements.

Don’t Skip the Dialogue: Why the ADA's Interactive Process Is a Legal and Strategic Must

By Philip Giorlando and Fred Preis


Employers know that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. But fewer understand that one of the law’s most important and frequently litigated requirements is the duty to engage in an interactive process with an employee or applicant who may need a reasonable accommodation.


This process isn’t optional—and failing to do it properly can expose employers to legal liability, even if the underlying accommodation request is ultimately denied.


What Is the Interactive Process?


The interactive process is a collaborative dialogue between the employer and the employee (or applicant) to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made that would enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the job. This dialogue should be a flexible and individualized conversation, not a rigid checklist or one-size-fits-all form.


Employers should keep in mind that the focus is not just on compliance—it’s on solutions. A well-handled process supports retention and morale while also mitigating legal risk.


When Must an Employer Initiate the Process?


Generally, the obligation arises when an employee communicates a need for assistance at work due to a medical condition. Importantly, employers should remember that:


  • No "magic words" are needed. The employee doesn’t have to use the phrase “reasonable accommodation” or mention the ADA. A statement like “I’m having trouble getting to work on time because of medical treatments” is enough to trigger your duties under the law.
  • Third parties can initiate the request. A family member, doctor, or even a coworker may make the initial accommodation request on behalf of the employee.
  • Obvious disabilities require action. In cases where a disability is clearly apparent, such as a physical or cognitive condition, and the employer is aware that the employee is struggling, the duty to initiate the process may arise even if the employee does not ask for help.


Best Practices for Employers


Once the process begins, it’s critical that employers act promptly and in good faith. Employers should:


  • Respond quickly. Unnecessary delays—especially weeks or months of silence—can be seen as evidence of noncompliance.
  • Clarify job functions. Understand which functions are essential versus marginal. Employers are not required to remove essential functions, but may need to reassign marginal ones.
  • Train Supervisors. Front line supervisors are often the first supervisors who receive a request for a reasonable accommodation. How these supervisors respond can mean the different between a proper interactive process and a disability claim. Employers should have all supervisors trained at least annually so they are sensitized to recognize requests for accommodations.
  • Seek relevant documentation only when appropriate. If the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, it is appropriate to request medical documentation—but only as needed to verify the condition and assess limitations. Employers should be careful about asking for medical information when it is not needed.
  • Consider a range of accommodation options. Employers should weigh both the employee’s suggestions and their own operational needs. While the employee’s preferences matter, the employer has discretion to select the accommodation that is effective and does not pose an undue hardship, even if it is not one that the employee requests.
  • Document each step of the interactive dialogue. Maintaining detailed records of the interactive process, including communications, assessments, and reasons for decisions, is crucial in case an employer’s decision is challenged.


Legal and Strategic Benefits


Engaging properly in the interactive process doesn’t just reduce exposure to disability discrimination/failure to accommodate claims—it can also shield employers from compensatory and punitive damages if a dispute arises. Courts have found that employers who make sincere efforts to accommodate, even when unsuccessful, may avoid harsher penalties that accompany perceived indifference or bad faith.


Final Thoughts



The interactive process is not a one-time form or a bureaucratic formality—it is the heart of the law’s reasonable accommodation requirement. Employers who invest in training HR teams and frontline managers on this process will be better positioned to handle accommodation requests with both legal compliance and compassion.


Taking the time to listen and collaborate isn’t just a legal obligation—it’s also the right approach for building a more inclusive and resilient workplace.


Beyond the Jersey: Managing NIL in the Workspace

By Kayla Jacob and Fred Preis


Name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) is often linked to college athletes cashing in on their public image: but how does it relate to employees?


Individuals in virtually every state, including Louisiana, hold a property right in the commercial use of their identity. That means an employer may face restrictions when using an individual’s name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, or digital replica without consent. An employee’s “identity rights” typically remain enforceable for decades after their death.


Does this mean that every employer needs to strike a lucrative NIL deal with each employee? Not necessarily. Normally, a job offer or continued employment provides enough value to justify an employer’s use of an employee’s identity. However, that does not eliminate the need for consent under some state laws, including Louisiana. 


Before using employee images in a company magazine or on social media to promote the business, employers should first review their handbooks and agreements to confirm compliance with identity rights laws of each state in which they operate. 

Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P. Labor & Employment Attorneys

David C. Fleshman

david.fleshman@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8055

Murphy J. Foster, III

murphy.foster@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8015

Alexandra Cobb Hains

alex.hains@bswllp.com

(225) 381.3175

Philip Giorlando

philip.giorlando@bswllp.com

(225) 680.5244

Leo C. Hamilton

leo.hamilton@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8056

Kayla M. Jacob

kayla.jacob@bswllp.com

(225) 584.5451

Rachael Jeanfreau

rachael.jeanfreau@bswllp.com

(225) 584.5467

Steven B. Loeb

steven.loeb@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8050

Eve B. Masinter

eve.masinter@bswllp.com

(225) 584.5468

E. Fredrick Preis, Jr.

fred.preis@bswllp.com

(225) 584.5470

Jacob E. Roussel

jacob.roussel@bswllp.com

(225) 381.3172

John Shaw, Jr.

john.shaw@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8022

Melissa M. Shirley

melissa.shirley@bswllp.com

(225) 381.3173

Scott D. Wilson

scott.wilson@bswllp.com

(225) 381.8005