Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

The Wyoming Supreme Court recently made an important change to the way restrictive covenant agreements are evaluated by courts in that state.  For many years, courts in Wyoming – as in many other states – have followed the so-called “blue pencil” rule when presented with a non-competition or non-solicitation agreement whose restrictions appear to be unreasonable.

The D.C. Council (the “Council”) is poised to further postpone the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Act 23-563) (the “Act”). On March 1, 2022, Councilmember Elissa Silverman introduced emergency legislation (B24-0683) that would push back the Act’s applicability date from April 1 to October 1, 2022. Councilmember Silverman simultaneously introduced and the D.C. Council adopted an emergency declaration resolution (PR24-0603) allowing the measure to proceed directly to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s desk for signing after a single reading.

Many employers have granted their white collar workers increased flexibility to work remotely in response to the pandemic. As a result, some employees have moved away from the areas surrounding their offices and into places with lower costs or higher quality of living. In cases where an employee with a non-compete moves to a state such as California, which has a prohibition against any “contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind,” that can present potential problems for a Company. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 16600.

Employers, take note: certain amendments strengthening Oregon’s existing statutory restrictions on non-compete agreements, went into effect on January 1, 2022 – as previewed in our previous blog post.  Coupled with existing limitations in ORS 653.295, the newly-effective amendments mean that a non-compete entered into with an Oregon employee after January 1, 2022 will be “void” ab initio if:

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2022 update to “Preparing for Non-Compete Litigation,” co-authored by our colleague Peter A. Steinmeyer.

Colorado statutory law has traditionally limited enforcement of restrictive covenants.  C.R.S. § 8-2-113, entitled “Unlawful to intimidate worker – agreement not to compete,” provides that all contractual restrictions on a person’s post-employment competitive activity are “void” unless they fit into one of four categories: (1) contracts for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business; (2) contracts for the protection of trade secrets; (3) contracts providing for recovery of expenses of educating and training an employee who have served an employer less than two years; and (4) agreements with executives, management personnel, and their professional staff.  This statute applies not only to non-compete agreements, but also to agreements not to solicit customers or employees.  Most companies trying to defend their restrictive covenants do so under the exception to protect trade secrets or the exception for executives/managers/professional staff.

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2022 update to “Trade Secrets Litigation,” co-authored by our colleague Peter A. Steinmeyer.

Within the last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought its first indictments alleging criminal wage-fixing conspiracies and criminal no-poach conspiracies among competing employers.  In December 2020, DOJ indicted the president of a staffing company for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by allegedly conspiring with competitors to fix wages paid to physical therapists.  A month later, DOJ indicted a corporation for violating the Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it allegedly entered into “naked no-poach agreements,” pursuant to which it agreed not to solicit senior employees of two competitors   In March 2021, DOJ filed its second wage-fixing indictment, which also alleged a conspiracy to allocate workers.  As reported here and here, these indictments were the culmination of the DOJ’s Policy, contained in its 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (“Antitrust Guidance”) to bring criminal charges against employers who conspired to suppress wages, either through wage-fixing agreements or naked no-poach agreements.

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2021 update to “Garden Leave Provisions in Employment Agreements,” co-authored by our colleagues Peter A. Steinmeyer and Lauri F. Rasnick.

This Practice Note discusses garden leave provisions in employment agreements as an alternative or a companion to traditional employee non-compete agreements. It addresses the differences between garden leave and non-compete provisions, the benefits and drawbacks of garden leave, and drafting considerations for employers that want to use garden leave provisions. This Note applies to private employers and is jurisdiction neutral.

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2021 update to “Non-Compete Laws: Massachusetts,” a Q&A guide to non-compete agreements between employers and employees for private employers in Massachusetts, authored by our colleague David J. Clark.

This Q&A addresses enforcement and drafting considerations for restrictive covenants such as post-employment covenants not to compete and non-solicitation of customers and employees. Federal, local, or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements.