Weighing in on an issue that is drawing attention nationwide, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held, in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., that the mere continuation of employment is not sufficient consideration to support a restrictive covenant. Rather, for there to be sufficient consideration, the Court held that the employee must receive “some corresponding benefit or a favorable change in employment status.” As examples of such sufficient additional consideration, the Court cited “a promotion, a change from part-time to full-time employment, or ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Preparing for Non-Compete Litigation: 2025 Update
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Trade Secret Litigation - Lessons from High-Stakes Group Exits
- New York State Proposes Bill That Would Place Restrictions on Noncompetes and Other Restrictive Covenants
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: 2024’s Biggest Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Developments
- The Future of Federal Non-Compete Bans in a Trump Administration