The Massachusetts Legislature has spent the past several years seeking to regulate the use of restrictive covenant agreements in the Commonwealth. Despite repeatedly falling short in that initiative, the 2017 legislative session strongly signaled the Legislature’s enduring interest in this subject by introducing a whopping eight new competing bills.
In an article posted on our
In states that permit the enforcement of non-compete and other restrictive covenant agreements against former employees, companies must still demonstrate that the restrictions are designed to protect a legitimate business interest, and not to simply avoid ordinary competition. In Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, Case No. 3:17-cv-1135-J-34MCR (M.D.Fla. Nov. 14, 2017), the federal court for the
A bill in the New Jersey Senate, Senate Bill 3518 (“SB 3518”), and an identical companion bill in the New Jersey Assembly (Assembly Bill 5261), would significantly curtail the use of non-compete agreements in New Jersey. In an article posted on our website, Cliff Atlas, Kevin Miller and Colin Thakkar analyze SB 3518 and
Last month, this Blog highlighted a Minnesota decision evaluating the consideration required for non-compete agreements entered into after the commencement of employment. As that decision held, such agreements must be supported by valuable consideration over and above continued employment.
This month, in Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, Case No. A17-0360 (Minn. App., Nov. 6,
It is axiomatic that a contract requires consideration to be binding. Ordinarily, courts only inquire into the existence, but not the “adequacy,” of consideration. Illinois courts, however, also scrutinize the adequacy of consideration when it comes to determining whether restrictive covenant agreements qualify as an enforceable contract. Absent adequate consideration for the restrictive covenant, there
The Minnesota federal district court recently refused to enforce a non-compete agreement, in part, because the employer failed to establish that the agreement was supported by valuable consideration. The decision, issued on October 6, 2017 in Mid-America Business Systems, v. Sanderson et. al., Case No. 17-3876, serves as an important reminder that,
In Florida, non-competition and other restrictive covenant agreements are enforceable to the extent they are tailored to protect a legitimate business interest. On September 14, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held that a company’s relationships with business referral sources may constitute a protectable business interest – White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Fla.
In a recent decision examining Kansas non-compete law, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas partially granted a company’s motion to enjoin its former employee’s violations of the non-compete and customer non-solicitation provisions of his employment agreement. The decision, in the matter of Servi Tech, Inc. v. Olson, highlights a number
Once again, Nevada has re-written the landscape the law regarding enforcement of post-employment non-competition agreements. Please see the article posted on our website, written by Elayna J. Youchah and Joshua A. Sliker of our Las Vegas office. They analyze Assembly Bill 276, amending Chapter 613 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, signed into law by
Nebraska’s legal history on the enforceability of non-compete agreements is usually a surprise for employers who view Nebraska as pro-business. Nebraska courts routinely invalidate employee non-compete agreements that venture beyond restricting the employee from doing business with and soliciting customers with whom that employee did business and had personal contact. If there is a non-compete