California and New York recently enacted statutory restrictions aimed at “stay-or-pay” arrangements: California AB 692 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16608 & Cal. Lab. Code § 926) and the New York Trapped at Work Act (N.Y. Lab. Law art. 37, §§ 1050-1055), respectively. Such arrangements are contractual provisions that
Steven J. Pearlman
Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.
Employment, Restrictive Covenant & Trade Secret, and Whistleblower Practice. Steven’s national practice focuses on defending companies in federal and state courts and in arbitration fora against the full spectrum of employment-related claims, including claims of executives; restrictive covenant violations; employee raiding; theft of trade secrets; whistleblower retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and similar state laws; and wage-and-hour violations, including class, collective and PAGA actions.
Steven has successfully handled trials in multiple jurisdictions; prevailed in seeking and defending against applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions; defended one of the largest Illinois-only class actions in the history of the federal courts in Illinois (over 90k putative class members); and prevailed following his oral arguments before federal and state appellate courts. He brings his litigation experience (beginning in 1998) to bear in counseling clients to minimize risk and avoid or prepare for success in litigation.
Investigations. Reporting to boards of directors, their audit committees, CEOs and in-house counsel, Steven conducts sensitive investigations and has the unusual experience of testifying in federal court in connection with investigations. His investigations have involved complaints of sexual harassment involving C-suite officers; systemic violations of employment laws and company policies; and fraud, compliance failures and unethical conduct.
Thought Leadership and Accolades. Steven was named Lawyer of the Year for Chicago Labor & Employment Litigation in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Chambers has reported:
- Steven is “one of the best in the country and has a lot of experience”;
- Steven is as an “outstanding lawyer” who is “very sharp and very responsive,” a “strong advocate,” and an “expert in his field”;
- He is thoughtful, attentive and demonstrates an acute understanding of matters top of mind for business-minded general counsel; and
- "He is someone who can navigate the twists and turns of litigation without difficulty.”
Steven was 1 of 12 individuals selected by Compliance Week as a "Top Mind." Earlier in his career, he was 1 of 5 U.S. lawyers selected by Law360 as a ”Rising Star Under 40” in the area of employment law and 1 of “40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” selected by Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Steven is a U.S. Library of Congress Burton Award Winner for “Distinguished Legal Writing.”
Steven was appointed to Law360’s Employment Editorial Advisory Board and selected as a Contributor to Forbes.com. He has appeared on Bloomberg News (television and radio) and Yahoo! Finance, and is often quoted in leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has engaged Steven to serve as lead counsel on amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts of appeal.
In 2024, Steven received the Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
Tenth Circuit Clarifies Distinction Between “Ownership” and “Possession” in Trade Secret Claims
The Tenth Circuit recently held that an employee who failed to take adequate steps to protect confidential business information could not maintain claims against his former employer for trade secret misappropriation under either federal or state law. In Snyder v. Beam Technologies, Inc., 147 F.4th 1246 (Aug. 5, 2025)…
9th Circuit Clarifies Trade Secret Disclosure Requirements Under The DTSA
The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) does not require plaintiffs to identify their allegedly misappropriate trade secrets with reasonable particularity at the outset of discovery—much unlike the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., No. 23-16093 (Aug.
Massive $800 Million Verdict in Landmark Trade Secret Case
A California state jury awarded Propel Fuels, Inc. $604.9 million in damages after finding Phillips 66 Company liable for trade secret misappropriation. Propel Fuels, Inc. v. Phillips 66 Co., Case No. 22CV007197 (Cal. Oct. 16, 2024). The jury found defendant willfully misappropriated the trade secrets after conducting due diligence…
$30 Million Message: Jury Awards Substantial Punitive Damages for Trade Secret Theft
A nearly decade-long legal battle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently concluded with a significant jury verdict, underscoring the potentially severe consequences of trade secret theft claims. In Sonrai Systems, LLC v. Anthony M. Romano and The Heil Co. d/b/a Environmental Solutions Group…
Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Trade Secret Claims for Lack of Particularity and Secrecy
On April 22, 2025, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a sales manager and his new employer on claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”), and common law claims for misappropriation of confidential business information and civil conspiracy, which…
Georgia Federal Court Denies TRO and Motion to Dismiss in Trade Secrets Case
On March 27, 2025, in Stimlabs LLC v. Griffiths, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered a former executive, Sarah Griffiths, to face claims related to her alleged theft of Stimlab’s trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Georgia Trade Secrets…
Eleventh Circuit Revives Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim in Long-Running Litigation
On April 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s ruling dismissing Alabama Aircraft Industries’ (“AAI”) trade secret misappropriation claim against Boeing, thereby allowing AAI to pursue unjust enrichment damages in addition to amounts previously recovered on its breach of contract…
Court Rejects DTSA Claim Over Inadequate Efforts to Protect Alleged Trade Secrets
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a trade secret misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), finding that the employer failed to plead it had taken reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its alleged trade secrets.
In…
District Court Dismisses Trade Secrets Claim Lacking Explicit Expectation of Privacy
On February 20, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a trade secret misappropriation claim for failing to identify explicit language establishing an expectation of privacy to the protected information.
Plaintiffs in Vertical Bridge REIT LLC v. Everest Infrastructure Partners Inc., Case No. 23-1017…