In January 2017, the Massachusetts Legislature introduced a number of bills  seeking to limit employers’ use of non-compete agreements in the Commonwealth. Three of these proposed bills, HB 2371, SB 840, and SB 1017, impose a mandatory “garden leave clause” in any non-compete agreement. Such provisions would require employers who choose to enforce post-employment non-compete covenants to pay former employees, on a pro rata basis, either 50 or 100 percent of their earnings during the restricted period. If adopted, Massachusetts will become the first state to legislatively implement a garden leave requirement on employers.
In the months following, both the New York City Council  and New Jersey  Legislature followed suit, introducing their own proposals to limit non-compete agreements. The potential New York City ordinance, Introduction 1663, would prohibit the use of non-compete agreements for low wage employees, defined by New York labor law as clerical and other workers earning less than $900 per week. Int. No. 1663 further prohibits employers from imposing non-competes on potential employees who do not fall under the low wage employee label “unless, at the beginning of the process for hiring such employee, such employer disclosed in writing that they may be subject to such a covenant.” The bill was introduced by the City Council on July 20, 2017 and filed on December 31, 2017. If signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, the ordinance will take effect 120 days later.
New Jersey Senate Bill 3518, introduced in November 2017, similarly aims to curtail use of non-competes by limiting the class of workers subject to such restrictions and establishing a ten point list of criteria that must be met as a threshold for enforceability. Such criteria, enumerated in the text of the bill, requires notice to the employee, a 12-month cap on non-compete periods, an opportunity for the employee to defend against or challenge the validity of restrictive covenants and various other reasonableness requirements. Senate Bill 3518 also includes a “grandfather clause,” which permits any agreements that were in effect on or before the date of enactment to remain valid.
On November 27, 2017, Pennsylvania legislators proposed a more drastic measure: banning employee non-competes in their entirety. Pennsylvania House Bill 1938 (HR1938), would prospectively deem non-compete language in employment agreements illegal, unenforceable and void as a matter of law, except for a small set of specific exceptions expressly authorized by statute. A policy declaration set forth within the bill emphasizes legislative intent – lowering unemployment, maximizing wages and benefits for working families, promoting unrestricted trade and increasing businesses’ ability to obtain qualified hires.
These goals are reflected in the policies of all states currently pursuing this slow, but steadily growing, trend. Many of the proposed bills seek to foster economic growth, in particular among small businesses that cannot afford to incur the cost of paying a new employee while waiting for the non-compete period to expire. Representative Thomas R. Caltagirone believes the bill will also “give Pennsylvania businesses an advantage over non-Pennsylvania businesses in retaining and recruiting the best and brightest talent to the Commonwealth. ”
Similar proposals have since been introduced in New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington state. New Hampshire’s SB 423, introduced on January 24, 2018, proposes a limited ban on non-compete agreements between employers and “low-wage employees,” which the bill defines as employees earning less than or equal to $15.00 per hour or the federal minimum wage. The New Hampshire Bill is scheduled for a hearing in February. Comparable protections for low-wage workers are echoed in the New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York City Council bills.
Vermont legislators adopted a broader position mirroring that of their Pennsylvania counterparts; Under Vermont House Bill 556, “an agreement not to compete or any other agreement that restrains an individual from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is prohibited.” This language bans all non-compete agreements as void and unenforceable, except in the sale of a business or the dissolution of or dissociation from a partnership or limited liability company. An additional qualification states that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to prohibit an agreement that prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets” under Virginia law. If enacted, HN 556 will take effect on July 1, 2018. A similar bill limiting the use of non-compete agreements was referred to the Washington Senate’s Ways and Means Committee on February 2, 2018.
If successful, Pennsylvania and Vermont will join California, North Dakota and Oklahoma as the only states with complete bans on employee non-compete agreements.
 House Bill 2371 (HB 2371), Senate Bill 840 (SB 840), and Senate Bill 1017 (SB 1017)
 Introduction 1663
 Senate Bill 3518
 House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda titled “ Prospective Ban on Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements” available online at http://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20170&cosponId=23362
Richard Reice, L&E partner, is an experienced labor and employment law counselor and litigator with both law firm and in-house counsel experience. Recruited from a large New York law firm as a senior L&E associate, he was appointed ...
Allison N. Angel joined Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney in 2017. She represents clients in a variety of complex cases before federal and state courts. Her practice, which covers all phases of litigation from inception through trial ...
- The Defend Trade Secrets Act–A Sea Change In The Fight Against The Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets
- New Study Yields Information On Trade Secret Litigation Metrics
- More States Considering Limitations On Non-Competes Through Legislation
- Court Explains Limits Of Restrictive Covenants In Lift Out Of Executive Team
- A “Bet The Company” Trade Secret Case: Waymo LLC V. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Non-Competes Are Not For Everyone
- Data Misappropriation–Where To Sue
- Jumping Ship And Getting Sued For It: Nike V. Ralph Lauren
- The White House Opines On Non-Competes
- Restrictive Covenant Employment Guide For Employers
- September 2018
- August 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- May 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- June 2015
- April 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013