Employment Agreements

Subscribe to Employment Agreements via RSS

The 2024–2025 California legislative session came to an official close at midnight on October 13, 2025, when Governor Newsom’s deadline to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature expired. Of the approximately 917 bills passed by the Legislature, the Governor signed 794 bills into law and vetoed 123 bills. The bills signed into law include several new employment-related laws for California employers.Continue Reading California’s 2024-2025 Legislative Session Closes with a Host of New Employment Laws for 2026

The Sunshine State just got brighter for Florida employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements. On April 24, 2025, the Florida legislature passed the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act (the “Act”). The Act—which took effect on July 1, 2025—significantly enhances the enforceability of both non-compete and garden leave agreements in Florida. As a result, Florida may now be the most non-compete friendly state in the nation.Continue Reading Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Florida’s New Non-Compete Law Shakes Up the Sunshine State

Beginning September 1, 2025, Texas will significantly narrow the permissible scope of non-compete agreements with certain healthcare employees. The legislation, Senate Bill 1318 (“SB 1318” codified in Tex. Bus. Com. Code § 15.50), represents the biggest legislative adjustment to restrictive covenants in the Lone Star State in decades.Continue Reading Texas Enacts Massive Reforms to Healthcare Provider Non-Competes

On May 19, 2025, the New Jersey legislature followed in New York’s footsteps and introduced two bills, S.B. 4385 and S.B. 4386, seeking to significantly curtail, if not totally ban, the use of non-compete clauses in the employment relationship.Continue Reading New Jersey Legislature Introduces Bills Calling for Sweeping Bans on Non-Compete and No-Poach Agreements

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further complicated the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) landscape. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2024), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) rejected the so-called “headless” PAGA theory and held that every PAGA action must include both an individual and a non-individual claim even if the plaintiff disavows their own claim, thereby preventing plaintiffs from using this strategy to avoid arbitration. A conflicting decision was issued by another appellate court (the Fourth District) in Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Servs. LTD., LLC, 109 Cal.App.5th 69 (2025), reh’g denied (Mar. 19, 2025). This disagreement between the two appellate decisions has led to considerable uncertainty for litigants facing pre-June 2024 PAGA lawsuits, with the California Supreme Court now stepping in to provide much needed guidance.Continue Reading Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

Effective July 1, 2025, Wyoming will restrict the enforceability of non-compete agreements. In enacting Senate Bill 107, Wyoming joins a growing list of states that have significantly restricted, or completely banned, non-compete agreements.Continue Reading Have Employees in Wyoming? Start Preparing for the Non-Compete Ban

The New York Legislature is set to make another attempt to ban non-competes for all but highly compensated individuals. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, the New York Legislature passed a bill that would have banned non-compete agreements for all employees regardless of wage or income level. Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed this bill while expressing her support for a more limited ban stating that she wanted to “strike a balance” between protecting middle-class and low-wage workers and “allowing New York’s businesses to retain highly compensated talent.”Continue Reading New York Legislature Proposes New Bill Banning Non-Compete Agreements

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)[1] allows “aggrieved employees” to sue their employers for Labor Code violations to collect civil penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The issue of how to resolve PAGA claims where the employee and employer are subject to a binding arbitration agreement has been hotly contested over the last several years, as reported many times in this blog [see here, here, and here].Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Arbitration by Bringing a “Headless PAGA Lawsuit”

As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor

Washington Governor Jay Inslee recently signed Senate Bill 5935 into law, amending and expanding Washington’s statute restricting the enforceability of noncompetition covenants (Revised Code of Washington 49.2). The amended statute, effective June 6, 2024 and enacted to “facilitat[e] workforce mobility and protect[] employees and independent contractors,” follows a growing trend among states restricting the enforceability of noncompetition covenants and creates additional considerations for employers entering into non-compete agreements with Washington-based employees.Continue Reading Washington’s Amended Non-Compete Law Creates New Considerations for Employers

On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, after the employer appealed the district court’s decision ordering arbitration of both an employee’s individual and non-individual claims under the California Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). The Ninth Circuit held that even though the arbitration agreement made no mention of PAGA, an employee’s individual PAGA claim was still subject to arbitration because the parties’ intended to arbitrate all employment disputes between them. However the non-individual PAGA claims were not arbitrable, because the parties did not consent to arbitration of those claims. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Only Individual PAGA Claims Can Be Compelled to Arbitration