Weighing in on an issue that is drawing attention nationwide, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held, in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., that the mere continuation of employment is not sufficient consideration to support a restrictive covenant. Rather, for there to be sufficient consideration, the Court held that the employee must receive “some corresponding benefit or a favorable change in employment status.” As examples of such sufficient additional consideration, the Court cited “a promotion, a change from part-time to full-time employment, or ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Trade Secrets on Trial - Strategic Decisions for the Courtroom
- The Sunshine State Joins Kansas in Introducing Employer-Friendly Restrictive Covenant Legislation
- States Continue to Introduce Legislation Aimed at Restricting Noncompete Agreements
- Health Care Non-Competes: 2025
- Wyoming Joins the List of States Banning Some Noncompete Agreements