As we predicted, earlier today, 100 industry organizations submitted a request to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to extend the comment period for its proposed rule banning noncompetes nationwide by an additional 60 days. According to the letter, “[t]he regulated community should be given sufficient time to assess the potential consequences of the rulemaking and develop insightful comments for the Commission to consider.” The letter further states:
Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2022 update to “Non-Compete Laws: Illinois,” a Q&A guide to non-compete agreements between employers and employees for private employers in Illinois, co-authored by our colleagues Peter Steinmeyer and David Clark, Members of the Firm in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice.
Continue Reading Illinois Non-Compete Laws: Q&A for Employers, 2022 Update
Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2022 update to “Non-Compete Laws: Massachusetts,” a Q&A guide to non-compete agreements between employers and employees for private employers in Massachusetts, authored by our colleagues David J. Clark and Erik Weibust, attorneys at Epstein Becker Green.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Non-Compete Laws: 2022 Update
Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2022 update to “Trade Secret Laws: Illinois,” a Q&A guide to state law on trade secrets and confidentiality for private employers, authored by our colleagues Peter Steinmeyer and David Clark at Epstein Becker Green.
Continue Reading Illinois Trade Secret Laws: 2022 Q&A Guide for Employers
On May 2, 2022, a bill “limiting certain provisions in restrictive covenants” was introduced in the New Jersey State Assembly. In recent years, similar bills have been proposed in various state legislatures. Some such bills, after much lobbying, haggling and revisions, have even been enacted into law, including, for example, in Massachusetts, Illinois and Washington.
Continue Reading Proposed New Jersey Non-Compete Law Aims to Provide a Little Bit of Everything
The Wyoming Supreme Court recently made an important change to the way restrictive covenant agreements are evaluated by courts in that state. For many years, courts in Wyoming – as in many other states – have followed the so-called “blue pencil” rule when presented with a non-competition or non-solicitation agreement whose restrictions appear to be unreasonable.
Continue Reading Non-Competes: No More Blue Penciling in Wyoming
Employers, take note: certain amendments strengthening Oregon’s existing statutory restrictions on non-compete agreements, went into effect on January 1, 2022 – as previewed in our previous blog post. Coupled with existing limitations in ORS 653.295, the newly-effective amendments mean that a non-compete entered into with an Oregon employee after January 1, 2022 will be “void” ab initio if:
Continue Reading Friendly Reminder: New Limitations on Non-Competes in Oregon Are Now in Effect
Colorado statutory law has traditionally limited enforcement of restrictive covenants. C.R.S. § 8-2-113, entitled “Unlawful to intimidate worker – agreement not to compete,” provides that all contractual restrictions on a person’s post-employment competitive activity are “void” unless they fit into one of four categories: (1) contracts for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business; (2) contracts for the protection of trade secrets; (3) contracts providing for recovery of expenses of educating and training an employee who have served an employer less than two years; and (4) agreements with executives, management personnel, and their professional staff. This statute applies not only to non-compete agreements, but also to agreements not to solicit customers or employees. Most companies trying to defend their restrictive covenants do so under the exception to protect trade secrets or the exception for executives/managers/professional staff.
Continue Reading Small Change in Colorado Law Could Have Large Effect: Criminalizing Restrictive Covenants
Within the last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought its first indictments alleging criminal wage-fixing conspiracies and criminal no-poach conspiracies among competing employers. In December 2020, DOJ indicted the president of a staffing company for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by allegedly conspiring with competitors to fix wages paid to physical therapists. A month later, DOJ indicted a corporation for violating the Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it allegedly entered into “naked no-poach agreements,” pursuant to which it agreed not to solicit senior employees of two competitors In March 2021, DOJ filed its second wage-fixing indictment, which also alleged a conspiracy to allocate workers. As reported here and here, these indictments were the culmination of the DOJ’s Policy, contained in its 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (“Antitrust Guidance”) to bring criminal charges against employers who conspired to suppress wages, either through wage-fixing agreements or naked no-poach agreements.
Continue Reading DOJ’s First Wage Fixing Indictment Survives a Motion to Dismiss Because Court Finds Wage-Fixing Agreements Are Illegal Per Se
Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2021 update to “Non-Compete Laws: Massachusetts,” a Q&A guide to non-compete agreements between employers and employees for private employers in Massachusetts, authored by our colleague David J. Clark.
Following is an excerpt:
This Q&A addresses enforcement and drafting considerations for restrictive covenants such as post-employment covenants not to compete and non-solicitation of customers and employees. Federal, local, or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements.