Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

Consistent with our previous reporting that states would continue to address noncompete issues even after the apparent end of the FTC Noncompete Rule, Ohio has joined the growing list of jurisdictions seeking to restrict the use of noncompetes.  On February 5, 2025, Ohio state Senators Louis W. Blessing (R) and William P. DeMora (D) introduced Senate Bill (SB) 11 (the “Bill”), that, if enacted, would prohibit employers from entering into a noncompete agreement with a “worker” or “prospective worker”. 

The Bill defines “worker” as “an individual who provides services for an employer[,]” including, among others, employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, and volunteers.  The Bill does not define “prospective worker.”

If enacted as introduced, the Bill would prohibit employers from enforcing agreements that prohibit or penalize workers from seeking or accepting work with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the relationship between the employer and worker, including any of the following:

Ohio has long recognized the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Broadly speaking, a court can do one of three things with an unenforceable non-compete agreement: (1) the court can apply the “red pencil” doctrine and invalidate the entire agreement; (2) the court can apply the “blue pencil” doctrine and strike the unenforceable provisions; or (3) the court can modify the non-compete agreement to make it enforceable.

In 1975, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted a rule of “reasonableness” when determining whether to enforce a non-compete agreement, holding in ...

The day after obtaining federal brokerage authority for the logistics company he formed a month earlier, Christopher Johnson, a North Carolina resident, resigned from his employment with Cincinnati-based Total Quality Logistics, LLC (“TQL”). TQL then sued Johnson and his company Patriot Logistics (“Patriot”) in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, alleging Johnson breached his employment agreement and misappropriated trade secrets in forming Patriot while still employed by TQL.

Johnson and Patriot removed the case to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. TQL moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement was not met. After the federal court denied TQL’s remand motion, TQL voluntarily dismissed the case and refiled in state court. Johnson and Patriot removed the case yet again.