Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state legislatures across the country have accelerated their discussion of new laws either restricting or further protecting access to abortions. A state senate bill in South Carolina, S. 1373 currently pending in the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs, would not only ban almost all abortions in that state, but would also afford novel whistleblower protections. Specifically, S. 1373 imposes criminal penalties, punishable by imprisonment for ten years, for persons who “take any action to impede a whistleblower from communicating about a violation of this article with the Attorney General, a solicitor, or any other person authorized to bring an action in violation of this article.”
Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, adopted in 2011 under the auspices of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, prohibits any person from taking any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the SEC, including by “enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .” The SEC has prioritized enforcing this rule expansively, by requiring employers to provide SEC-specific carveouts to policies and agreements governing confidentiality. According to an Order issued last week against The Brink’s Company ( “Brink’s” or “Brinks”), the SEC seems to suggest that employers must provide a specific carveout in restrictive covenant agreements permitting employees and former employees to report information to the SEC in addition to the statutory disclosure provided for in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
Oregon’s Senate Bill 169, signed May 21, 2021 strengthens Oregon’s existing restrictions on noncompete agreements. Unlike Oregon’s 2019 law which imposed new notice requirements on employers seeking to enter into enforceable noncompetes, Senate Bill 169’s changes are more subtle though just as impactful.
Previously, noncompete agreements which failed to comply with Oregon’s statutory requirements were “voidable.” Senate Bill 169 declares noncompliant noncompetes entered into after January 1, 2022 “void” ab initio. This seemingly minor change may ...
A recently passed Florida law, Florida Statutes 542.336 seeks to prevent medical providers from using restrictive covenants to monopolize medical specialties in rural counties. The law bars the enforcement of “restrictive covenants” against physicians who practice “a medical specialty in a county wherein one entity employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, all physicians who practice such specialty in that county.” Once a second provider enters the market for a particular specialty in a county, restrictive covenants ...
With its recently passed Act Relative to Noncompete Agreements for Low-Wage Employees, New Hampshire has joined a growing list of states (including Maryland and Maine) that have enacted laws barring employers from enforcing non-competition agreements against low-wage workers. The New Hampshire law prohibits employers from enforcing agreements against employees earning less than 200% of the federal minimum wage ($14.50/hour as of 2019) which limit their ability to work for another employer for (1) a specific period of time (2) in a specific geographic area, or (3) in a specific ...
- Free to Forfeit: Delaware High Court Holds Employee Choice Is Proper Lens for Evaluating Forfeiture-for-Competition Provisions in Partnership Agreements
- Trade Secrets Litigation: 2024 Update
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Invention Ownership - Why the Tense Matters in Employee IP Provisions
- Preparing for Non-Compete Litigation: 2024 Update
- Garden Leave Provisions in Employment Agreements: 2024 Update