On September 19, 2018, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) released a Frequently Asked Questions document (“FAQ”) regarding non-compete agreements in New York. The FAQ posits and answers the following basic questions about non-competes:

  • What is a non-compete agreement?
  • Are non-competes legal?
  • Do I have to sign a non-compete?
  • How could a non-compete affect me?
  • How do employers enforce non-competes?

In addition, the FAQ advises employees on specific steps to take before signing a non-compete, as well as actions employees can take if they signed a non-compete and are contemplating leaving their job. The FAQ concludes by emphasizing the NYAG’s efforts to end overly broad non-competes for rank-and-file employees who do not have access to trade secrets or confidential information, noting several recent settlements in this space and legislation introduced by the NYAG that would prohibit non-competes for workers earning below $75,000 per year (which is still pending).

The publication of the FAQ is not only a useful resource to employers and employees alike, but also another notable development in the close scrutiny that state attorneys general, nationwide, are applying to non-compete agreements.

On Monday, attorneys general in eleven states, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and Illinois, revealed that they are investigating several prominent fast food franchisors for their potential use of no-poaching or non-compete agreements restricting the ability of low wage workers to obtain a better-paying job with another franchise. To that end, these attorneys general have propounded document and information requests to these restaurants, returnable August 6, 2018.

In the Illinois AG’s press release, Attorney General Madigan stated that “No-poach agreements trap workers in low-wage jobs and limit their ability to seek promotion into higher-paying positions within the same chain of restaurants.” Madigan claims that at least 58 percent of major franchisors have no-poach provisions in their franchise agreements. This is not the first time that the Illinois AG has taken aim at non-compete agreements. Over two years ago, Madigan’s office sued sandwich chain Jimmy John’s for employing what it deemed “highly restrictive non-compete agreements,” ultimately reaching a $100,000 settlement with the franchisor. Ten months after Illinois passed the Freedom to Work Act, which prohibits private sector employers from requiring non-compete covenants of low-wage employees, defined as the greater of the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage (currently $7.25 under federal law and $8.25 under Illinois state law) or $13 per hour, Madigan sued a national payday lender for requiring its employees, including workers who earn less than $13 an hour, to sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of employment.

Illinois is not the only state to pursue non-compete reform. Several other states recently have enacted legislation curbing the use of non-competes with respect to certain categories of workers, such as certified nurse practitioners and midwives (New Mexico) and workers in the broadcasting industry earning under a certain salary (Utah). Other states have proposed similar legislation. For example, New Hampshire bill SB 423 would ban non-compete agreements with “low-wage employees.” On the other end of the spectrum, Vermont House Bill 556 and Pennsylvania House Bill 1938 would ban all non-competes other than those formed in connection with the sale of an ownership interest in a business entity or the dissolution of a partnership or limited liability company. Even if these bills ultimately fail, they signal a rising trend of state-level restrictive covenant reform, which will likely gain momentum as state attorneys general step up enforcement in this area.

A recent decision from an Arkansas appellate court raises two important issues of enforceability of non-competition agreements: (1) the enforceability of a non-compete after expiration of the contractual non-compete period and (2) the applicable standard for determining whether a valid protectable interest exists.

In Bud Anderson Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Neil, the plaintiff Bud Anderson Heating and Cooling, Inc. (“BAHC”), a HVAC vendor and service provider, appealed a lower court’s denial of BAHC’s petition for a one-year prospective injunction seeking to enforce an expired non-compete agreement with defendant Neil, which was allegedly violated when Neil joined a competitor located within BAHC’s territory and subsequently successfully solicited a BAHC customer.  Before addressing the merits of BAHC’s complaint, the appellate court considered—and ultimately rejected—Neil’s argument that BAHC’s appeal was moot since the injunction sought extended beyond the contract’s one-year-from-date-of-termination period.  In so holding, the court relied on (1) caselaw from other jurisdictions finding that extension of a noncompetition period is within a court’s broad equitable powers and (2) application of the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine,” previously unapplied in this context.

Turning to the merits of the appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court should have applied an “able to use,” not an “actual use” standard in determining whether to grant BAHC’s injunction. Under an “able to use standard,” a petitioner need only demonstrate the ability of a former employee to use the former employer’s proprietary information to obtain an unfair competitive advantage; proof that the employee actually used such information is not required.

The Bud Anderson decision is noteworthy in two respects.  First, Arkansas employers may be able to enforce non-competes after expiration of the non-compete period, thereby achieving longer non-compete periods that would ordinarily be deemed by courts unreasonable and invalid.  Second, Arkansas employers seeking to enforce non-competes can take advantage of an “able to use” standard, which is easier to meet than an “actual use” standard.  However, given that the Bud Anderson decision presents not one but two issues of first impression, it would not be surprising if the case were to ultimately end up before the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding these developments in Arkansas, employers should note that other courts have reached different conclusions on both of these issues. As always, it is critical to know the state-specific law in the applicable jurisdiction.