New Jersey may be next up to join the growing number of states that significantly restrict the use of non-competition agreements in employment. As we discussed back in December 2017, a bill proposed in New Jersey at the time, Senate Bill 3518, would “impose significant restrictions and limitations” on the use of restrictive covenants
Texas courts are increasingly encountering efforts to challenge restrictive covenant agreements on free speech grounds, where the restricted activity includes business-related communications. A recent Texas appellate court decision indicates that this strategy has its limits.
In Hieber v. Percheron Holdings, LLC, No. 14-19-00505-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 14, 2019), Percheron Holdings, LLC (“Percheron”)
On November 14, 2019, the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing to examine recently proposed bills that would regulate non-compete agreements at the federal level. Discussion during the hearing indicates that it may have the necessary support to move forward.
Pending Non-Compete Legislation
On October 15, 2019, Senators Chris Murphy
On August 26, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court invalidated a California employee’s customer and employee non-solicitation covenant on the grounds that it violated California law. In doing so, the Court rejected the plaintiff company’s attempt to override California law by including a Delaware choice of law provision in the underlying agreement.
Background
We initially reported
On May 8, 2019, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law HB 1450, described as “AN ACT Relating to restraints, including noncompetition covenants, on persons engaging in lawful professions, trades, or businesses[.]” While the Act does not take effect until January 1, 2020, its restrictions apply retroactively to existing agreements signed before that date.
Last year, Democrats in the United States Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills — S.2782 and H.R.5631 — banning non-compete agreements in the vast majority of workplaces across the country. Although those bills failed to gain traction, the authors of this Blog anticipated a renewed effort at federal non-compete reform in 2019, with Democrats
When implementing restrictive covenant agreements in their workforces, companies often grapple with how best to handle the wide variation in the law from one state to the other. One solution is to include a choice of law provision that calls for all agreements to be construed under the laws of a single state. Still, there
Answering a question left from a previous appeal in the same case, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has concluded that a settlement agreement provision between a physician and his former employer, the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (“CEP”), constituted a “restraint of a substantial character” on the
Just before midnight on July 31, 2018, the last day of its legislative session, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a significant bill regulating the use of non-compete agreements in the Commonwealth. Today, August 10, 2018, Governor Charlie Baker signed that bill into law.
In an article dated August 1, 2018, we examined the key aspects
Just before midnight on July 31, 2018, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a bill regulating the use of non-compete agreements in the Commonwealth. This development is a long time coming, as the Legislature had been attempting for nearly a decade to create a non-compete law.
In an article posted on our website on August 1, 2018,