The recent decided case of Duplessis Buick-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chauncey offers Louisiana employers a powerful cause of action against highly trusted former employees for breach of.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The recent decided case of
Duplessis Buick-GMC Truck,
Inc. v. Chauncey offers Louisiana employers a powerful
cause of action against highly trusted former employees for breach
of fiduciary duty one that is akin to an action to enforce
noncompete agreements or trade secret laws but without statutory
constraints.
Fiduciary duty is the highest duty known to the law. In
Louisiana, employees ordinarily have a duty of loyalty to their
current or former employers, but they do not have a fiduciary duty
to their employers. Certain relationships, however, impose
Friday, April 9, 2021
The recent decided case of
Duplessis Buick-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chauncey offers Louisiana employers a powerful cause of action against highly trusted former employees for breach of fiduciary duty one that is akin to an action to enforce noncompete agreements or trade secret laws but without statutory constraints.
Fiduciary duty is the highest duty known to the law. In Louisiana, employees ordinarily have a duty of loyalty to their current or former employers, but they do not have a fiduciary duty to their employers. Certain relationships, however, impose fiduciary duties on the participants, such as the duty that a trustee owes to a trust beneficiary. In
In July of 2020, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), known ever since as the
AAPC decision. The Supreme Court set out to answer a question years in the making whether the “robocall” provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by exempting calls to collect a debt owed to the federal government through a 2015 amendment, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution by favoring a specific category of speech above all others.
The Supreme Court’s opinion, severing the troublesome provision of the TCPA as unconstitutional, had seemingly little practical impact. While some had hoped that the Supreme Court would invalidate the entirety of the robocall provisions, oral argument revealed few takers from the Supreme Court on that position and only two justices would have signed on to do so. However, while the Court agreed that the “government debt” except
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.