News & Events

Do you ever watch a particular news program because of the news anchors or listen to a certain radio program be­cause of the announcer? Viewers and listeners usually tune in to programs based on how entertaining or engaging they find the show, which is frequently a byproduct of how personable and likeable the announcer is. The best radio, television, and cable personalities have a certain on-air identity that viewers and listeners find attractive. In short, they have an engaging media persona with which viewers connect. That persona car­ries with it a certain cachet, and media personalities sometimes even become icons. When they are seen as the veritable “face” of the program, the broadcaster’s loss of their talent could be devastating to the program’s ratings.

Because their competitors would love to lure away popu­lar news anchors or radio presenters, it’s no wonder that radio, TV, and cable broadcasters love to lock up their on-air talent with noncompetition agreements. But that has been changing across the country—and it’s now starting to change in Utah. As you may recall, it wasn’t that long ago that the Utah Legisla­ture limited new noncompete agreements to one year. In 2018, state lawmakers enacted a new law that will have an impact on when and under what circumstances noncompetes can be used in connection with radio, television, and cable news anchors and reporters and other on-air personalities. In some cases, the use of noncompetes is simply banned. This article discusses the new law and its effect on the broadcasting industry.

As most of you know, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires employers involved in commerce to pay covered employees overtime for all hours over 40 they work during a workweek. The overtime rate must be at least 1½ times the employee’s regular rate of pay. However, there are certain recognized exemptions to the FLSA’s overtime requirements.

For decades, those exemptions have been narrowly construed to require the payment of overtime to more employees. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected that interpretation in determining whether service advisers at an automobile dealership were exempt from the FLSA. Read on to find out why the Court rejected a decades-old interpretive tool and what the ruling may mean for employers going forward.