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
- Texas Amends Restrictive Covenant Laws for Healthcare Providers
- New Jersey Bill Would Introduce Sweeping Noncompete and No-Poach Restrictions: Strategic Implications for Employers
- New Jersey Non-Compete Laws: 2025 Update
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk
- Montana, Indiana, Colorado, Oregon, and Utah Amend Restrictive Covenant Laws for Healthcare Providers