Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

On July 17, 2024, Governor Josh Shapiro approved Pennsylvania’s first statute imposing limitations on the use of noncompetes in the state. The Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (the “Act”) prohibits the enforcement of certain noncompete covenants entered into by health care practitioners and employers. Here are the key points of the Act:

• The Act’s effective date is January 1, 2025.
• Subject to certain exceptions, a “noncompete covenant” entered into after January 1, 2025 is “deemed contrary to the public policy and is void and unenforceable by an employer.”
• A “noncompete covenant” is defined as an “agreement that is entered into between an employer and a health care practitioner in this Commonwealth which has the effect of impeding the ability of the health care practitioner to continue treating patients or accepting new patients, either practicing independently or in the employment of a competing employer after the term of employment.”

We previously reported that Ryan LLC (“Plaintiff”) and the United States Chamber of Commerce (“Plaintiff-Intervenor”), in anticipation of the Northern District of Texas’s merits disposition, would likely seek nationwide application of the preliminary injunction staying the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Noncompete Rule, or alternatively, that the preliminary injunction be expanded to apply to all of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s members under the associational standing doctrine.

On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor filed motions seeking exactly that type of relief. 

We previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Comm’n, Case No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, granted a preliminary injunction staying the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) final rule banning almost all post-employment noncompetes (the “Noncompete Rule”), but limited the scope of its ruling to only those parties in that case. Following that ruling, on July 10, 2024, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff-intervenors (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Expedited Motion for Limited Reconsideration of the Scope of Preliminary Relief on the issue of associational standing.

On July 11, the court promptly denied Plaintiffs’ motion. In a one-paragraph order, the court held that Plaintiffs had “not shown themselves entitled to the respective relief requested.” Separately, the court entered an “amended briefing schedule for the merits disposition” (the “Briefing Schedule”) that will likely address many of the issues argued in Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Briefing Schedule requires that the matter be fully briefed by August 16, 2024, and the court is scheduled to issue a disposition on the merits by August 30, 2024.     

As we all await rulings on the lawsuits challenging the FTC’s Noncompete Rule (one of which may be decided later today), we provide an update on the Knicks/Raptors trade secret case that we previously discussed on EBG’s Spilling Secrets Podcast Series and blogged about here.  Although the Knicks had a successful year on the court, they suffered an in court loss last week to the Toronto Raptors.    

In the March 2024 edition, Bracket-Busting Trade Secret and Non-Compete Disputes in Sports, we discussed the Knicks’ federal court action against the Toronto Raptors for theft of trade secrets.  We noted that the Knicks sought neither a Temporary Restraining Order nor a Preliminary Injunction and that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay the case pending arbitration before the Commissioner of the NBA.      

In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Knicks alleged that their former employee and now current Raptors employee, Ikechukwu Azotam, misappropriated the Knicks’ confidential and proprietary information at the behest of the Raptors, in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”), as well as various common law claims.  The defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration pursuant to the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws, which provide that the NBA Commissioner shall have complete and final jurisdiction over any dispute involving two or more members of the NBA. 

On June 26, 2024, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee vetoed a bill that would have banned nearly all noncompetes and customer non-solicits in the State of Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island legislature passed 2024-H8059 Substitute A, “An Act Relating to Labor and Labor Relations Rhode Island Noncompetition Agreement Act” (the “Bill”), that if enacted, would have banned all new and existing noncompetes except for those “made in connection with the sale of a business.” If the Bill had been passed, it also would have banned all customer non-solicits, although employee non-solicits would have remained enforceable.

This is the final installment of our three-part series discussing employers’ most frequently asked questions in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”).

As reported in Part 2, there are continued attempts at both the federal and state level to ban or restrict the use of noncompetes.  As a result of this ongoing attack on noncompetes, employers have asked a third – and most important – question: “In light of the Noncompete Rule and push by many states to restrict the use of noncompetes, what should we be doing now to best protect our business interests?”

The answer to this often-asked question is to ensure that the company’s trade secret and confidential information is protected to the fullest extent possible through the use of a Trade Secret Assessment, or as we have referred to it: a “Trade Secret Tune-Up."

This is the second installment of our three-part blog series that is intended to respond to employers’ three most frequently asked questions in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”). Part 1 addressed whether employers can seek to enforce their noncompetes pending the anticipated effective date of the Noncompete Rule. 

A second frequently asked question is: “Can we continue to enter into noncompetes with newly hired, or existing, employees?”  The short answer is “yes”, but employers should be aware of some pitfalls.

On Spilling Secrets, our podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law, we underscore the importance of e-discovery in trade secret and restrictive covenant cases and look at how employers can use electronically stored information (ESI) to protect proprietary information:

There’s a common misperception that ESI just means emails, but it’s much more than that. ESI encompasses anything in digital or electronic form. The departure of an employee is at the root of most trade secret and restrictive covenant litigation. Therefore, when an employee departs, the timely preservation of ESI must be a standard operating procedure.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner and Elizabeth S. Torkelsen and special guest James Vaughn, Managing Director of iDiscovery Solutions, discuss the complicated field of digital forensics and how employers can effectively manage ESI.

This three-part blog series is intended to identify and respond to three of the most frequently posed questions by employers in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”).

We previously reported on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Noncompete Rule and the currently pending litigation challenging the Noncompete Rule.  In one of those cases, which was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and consolidated with the lawsuit filed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction. The court has indicated that it intends to rule on that motion by July 3, 2024.

When the calendar turns to July 2024, staffing agencies, home health agencies and other service providers operating in Minnesota are going to experience a considerable change in the legal landscape of that state, which could affect their motivation to continue doing business there. 

On July 1, 2024, a new Minnesota law (MN SF 3852) goes into effect, prohibiting any service provider (defined as a business “acting directly or indirectly as an employer or manager for work contracted or requested by a customer”), from restricting, restraining or prohibiting in any way that customer from directly or indirectly soliciting or hiring an employee of the service provider.