Connecticut lawmakers recently introduced two bills that seek to ban non-competition agreements for physicians. If implemented, this would be the second time in five years that Connecticut has legislated in the area of physician restrictive covenants.
In mid-2016, Connecticut enacted legislation that implemented a maximum one-year temporal limitation on physician non-competition agreements, as well as
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
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Indiana has enacted a new law governing non-compete agreements used with physicians.
Our Practice Group members in Indianapolis authored an article detailing the new law’s requirements. As the article notes, the new law raises multiple unanswered questions.
And, while not as sweeping as other statutes, Indiana now joins
Is anyone focusing on anything other than the COVID-19 Pandemic? Apparently, the Virginia legislature and governor are undeterred, enacting a series of new laws. Among them, Virginia has banned non-compete agreements for lower wage earners, becoming the most recent state to do so. A summary of the key provisions is included in this article written
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 April 26, 2019, the two chambers of the Washington Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450 (“HB 1450” or the “Non-Compete Act”), which regulates non-competition agreements with employees and independent contractors, and severely restricts franchisee no-poach agreements as well as policies against moonlighting. Governor Inslee is expected to sign the Act, which would take
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