Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

On January 3, 2025, the Washington State Legislature introduced HB1155 (the “Bill”) that, if passed, would broaden the definition of a “noncompetition covenant” and prohibit all employer-employee noncompete agreements.  The Bill would also seek to clarify the definition of “non-solicitation agreement” under Washington law. On January 13, 2025, the Bill was referred to the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee where it remains pending.

Washington’s statute restricting the use of noncompetition covenants took effect in 2020, and it was amended in important ways last year.  The current Bill proposes yet more amendments.

If passed, the Bill would amend Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Sections 49.62.005 and 49.62.010 to expand upon the definition of “noncompetition covenant” and notes that the provisions protecting employees and independent contractors must be construed liberally. Under the Bill, a “noncompetition covenant” includes:

With the Federal Trade Commission’s Noncompete ban essentially dead, state legislatures, as expected, are taking restrictive covenant lawmaking into their own hands. We previously reported that in 2023, while the FTC Noncompete ban was pending, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that sought to ban all noncompetes in the State of New York, stating that a “balance” was needed instead of a strict ban on all noncompetes. On January 9, 2025, the New York State Assembly introduced NY A01361 (the “Bill”) to the Assembly Labor Committee that, if passed, would allow “employers to request or require a prospective or current employee to execute a restrictive covenant not to engage in specified acts in competition with the employer after termination of the employment relationship as a condition of employment, continued employment, or with respect to severance pay,” but only subject to certain requirements (discussed below).

The Bill would amend New York Labor Law to add Section 191-d: “Restrictive covenants.” Under this section, an Employee is defined as “any person employed for hire by an employer in any employment,” including “in a supervisory, managerial, or confidential position.” An Employer includes “any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association” as well as “the state[,] . . . political subdivisions, governmental agencies, public corporations, and charitable organizations.” The Bill also defines restrictive covenant as an agreement between an employee and an employer concerning existing or prospective employment, or an agreement between employee and employer with respect to severance pay.

The Bill outlines that for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable it must meet the following requirements:

National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (“Abruzzo”) issued a General Counsel Memo (Memo GC 25-01) last week signaling that employers could face civil prosecution and significant monetary remedies for using non-compete and so-called “stay-or-pay” provisions in agreements with their employees.The new memo, issued on October 7, 2024, builds on Abruzzo’s earlier General Counsel Memo issued in May 2023, where, as we reported, she outlined her belief that nearly all post-employment non-competes violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Since Abruzzo’s May 2023 memo, employers have witnessed a number of significant developments in this space, including the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) issuance of a rule in April 2024 banning the use of most non-competes and a subsequent decision by a Texas federal judge blocking that FTC rule. In June 2024, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company finding that non-competes and non-solicitation clauses violate the Act, a decision currently being appealed to the Board.

In her October 7, 2024 memo, Abruzzo again urges the Board to find non-competes with all employees who are subject to the Act’s jurisdiction (nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees) to violate the Act except in a few limited circumstances, arguing that such provisions are frequently “self-enforcing” and deter employee mobility. She also advocates for “make whole” remedies where employers are found to have continued to maintain unlawful non-competes. Specifically, the memo argues that merely voiding such provisions is insufficient and that employees should be afforded the right to seek compensatory relief for the “ill effects” that flow from complying with “unlawful non-compete provisions.”

Employers with employees in the District of Columbia have until Monday, October 31, 2022, to comply with a specific notice provision contained in the D.C. Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022 (B24-0256) (the “Amendment”).

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.

Our colleagues Nathaniel Glasser, Brian Steinbach, Maxine Adams, and Eric Emanuelson Jr. of Epstein Becker Green have a new post on Workforce Bulletin that will be of interest to our readers: "Washington, D.C. Postpones Ban on Non-Competes."

The following is an excerpt:

Washington, D.C. employers have more time to get their non-compete ducks in a row. On August 23, 2021, Mayor Bowser signed the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Support Act of 2021 (B24-0373) (the “Support Act”), which includes various statutory changes necessary to implement the D.C. FY 2022 budget. As expected ...