California has passed two new items of legislation, Senate Bill 699 and Assembly Bill 1076, which will further regulate and restrict the enforcement of employment non-compete agreements in California, and expand the scope of remedies for those affected by them. These new laws will become effective on January 1, 2024, and now is the time for employers to assess and revise their employment-related agreements and restrictive covenants accordingly. As detailed below, they also require employers to notify employees and certain former employees by February 15, 2024 that certain non-compete provisions are void. The two new laws are detailed below.Continue Reading California Strengthens Non-Competition Law

For those employers who have not yet modified their Minnesota employment and non-compete templates, the time is now. Pursuant to MN SF 3035, as of July 1, 2023, Minnesota employers are prohibited from entering into post-employment non-compete agreements with employees and individual independent contractors. Continue Reading Time for Employers to Modify Minnesota Protective Covenant Templates

In a blog earlier this year, we discussed the Delaware Chancery Court’s refusal to enforce a sale of business non-compete in Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v Adams. We wondered then whether Kodiak represented a one-off decision or whether it augured a trend that might give buyers of businesses pause. Delaware courts seem to have answered the question. In what constitutes a notable trend for buyers of businesses, Delaware courts have twice more refused to enforce non-competes under a sale of a business analysis. Continue Reading Buyer Beware: Delaware Courts Continue to Refuse to Enforce Deal-Based Non-Competes

Executive Summary

A sweeping bill that would effectively ban all newly entered non-compete agreements (and potentially impact provisions and agreements that act as a de facto non-compete) for all employees, regardless of wage or income level, is heading to New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk.Continue Reading The End of Non-Competes in New York? State Legislature Passes Non-Compete Ban Moving One Step Closer to the Edge

Imagine paying millions to acquire a company only to later discover the restrictive covenants in the employment agreements of high-level executives were unenforceable. That’s precisely what happened in Intertek Asset Integrity Management. In Intertek, Texas’s Twelfth Court of Appeals held a company Vice President’s non-compete was unenforceable by the purchaser-entity because the underlying employment agreement lacked an assignment clause. Such language, if included, would have permitted the seller to transfer the contract’s rights and obligations without the employee’s consent. Assignability clauses are frequently buried in the “miscellaneous” section of agreements and—too often—omitted. Businesses who overlook these terms in Texas employment contracts do so at their peril.Continue Reading Missed Assignments: The Importance of Assignability Clauses in Restrictive Covenant Agreements

Courts and state legislatures continue to take aim at post-employment non-competes. In a companion blog, we recently detailed the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed rule banning post-employment non-competes. However, for years (and even under the FTC’s overreaching proposed rule), non-competes in the sale of business context have generally received less scrutiny.Continue Reading Buyer Beware: Delaware Declines to Enforce Sale of Business Non-Compete

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a broad proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompete clauses on their workers. The FTC press release announcing the proposed rule states that noncompete clauses—which apply to about one in five American workers—suppress wages, hamper innovation, block entrepreneurs from starting new businesses and reduce American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year.[1] The proposed rule would prohibit employers from: (1) entering into or attempting to enter into a noncompete with a worker; (2) maintaining a noncompete with a worker; or (3) representing to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete. The term “worker” covers paid staff in addition to independent contractors and unpaid staff. The proposed rule does not apply to noncompete provisions imposed upon 25% owners of a business in transaction documents related to the sale of the business. The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period commencing when the Federal Register publishes the proposed rule.Continue Reading FTC Seeks to Ban Noncompete Agreements in Employment Contracts

On July 27, 2022, Mayor Muriel Bowser signed into law the Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022, scaling back certain aspects of D.C.’s original Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020. As we previously reported, the original ban included some of the most substantial non-compete restrictions in the country, including prohibiting the use of non-compete agreements for nearly all employees working in D.C. and banning anti-moonlighting policies. Here are some key takeaways from the Amendment:Continue Reading The District of Columbia Revises Ban on Non-Competes

On August 10, 2022, Colorado House Bill 22-1317 became law. Following the national trend of limiting employer use of non-compete and non-solicit covenants, Colorado now prohibits the use of non-competes and non-solicits except in the sale of business context and with “highly compensated” workers. The law also provides specific notice requirements and imposes costly penalties for non-compliance. The law’s requirements and penalties are not retroactive. The key requirements of the new law are as follows:Continue Reading Colorado’s New Restrictive Covenant Law Now Effective

Following a nationwide trend, New Jersey recently joined a growing list of states seeking to limit the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements by employers.Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About Newly Proposed Non-Compete Legislation in New Jersey