Sorenson’s ongoing practice of requiring non-competition agreements for its Video...
Sorenson’s ongoing practice of requiring non-competition agreements for its Video Relay Service interpreters for a year after leaving the firm “is contrary to the public interest and should be declared void as against public policy,” Purple Communications told the FCC…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
in a letter sent Friday (http://bit.ly/ZXQ9JT). Artificially removing interpreters from the labor pool harms competing providers and ultimately consumers, said Purple, which competes with Sorenson in providing services to those with hearing impairments. Eventually “the public in general” is harmed by having to pay higher interexchange telephone service rates to subsidize VRS service, Purple said. It’s been “directly impacted” by Sorenson’s restrictions, unable to hire interpreters who were “fearful” of “the economic or legal risks posed by the noncompetition provisions” of their Sorenson employment, Purple said. The commission should “expeditiously bar such covenants as a way of decreasing VRS costs, improving service quality and promoting competition,” Purple said.