Featured on Employment Law This Week: Non-competes are coming under the microscope of the U.S. Treasury.
A recent report from the Treasury calls for more transparency in non-compete agreements and better communication around their use. Approximately 18 percent of the workforce is subject to these restrictive covenants, and there is increasing scrutiny around them on both the state and federal levels. A recent Utah statute restricts non-competes to no more than one year, while Oregon and Alabama recently tightened their statutory restrictions.
View the episode below ...
[caption id="attachment_2116" align="alignright" width="113"] James P. Flynn[/caption]
The State of Utah recently enacted Utah Code Annotated 34-51-101 et seq., the so-called Post-Employment Restrictions Amendments, which limit restrictive covenants entered into on or after May 10, 2016 to a one-year time period from termination. Although this could curtail certain employers’ plans, the amendments enacted provide some important exceptions and are in fact much more favorable to employers than those first proposed, which would have precluded virtually all ...
[caption id="attachment_2106" align="alignright" width="90"] Matthew Aibel[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_2105" align="alignright" width="90"] Anthony Laura[/caption]
With remote access technology becoming standard across industries, companies readily engage a multi-state workforce, with many employees residing outside of the employer’s home state. While an expanded access to talent may be beneficial, one drawback is the ability to enforce restrictive covenants with out of state employees in a consistent manner and in the employer’s home state. The case ...
A featured story on Employment Law This Week is a Massachusetts court's ruling that former counsel is not barred from giving advice to a competitor.
An in-house lawyer for Gillette left the company 10 years ago. Four years later, he became General Counsel for Shavelogic, a Gillette competitor. Gillette recently tried to obtain a broad injunction against the lawyer, who they claimed would inevitably disclose trade secrets in his position. The Massachusetts Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session ruled that there was insufficient evidence that trade secrets would be ...
[caption id="attachment_2093" align="alignright" width="120"] Barry A. Guryan[/caption]
The Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Robert DeLeo, announced last week that he will introduce a compromise bill this session to place limits on the enforcement of non-competes in Massachusetts.
The Speaker’s stated motive is to find a balance between the goal of protecting businesses in Massachusetts and fostering a business environment that encourages the incubation for talent. The proposed bill would place a 12-month limit on non-compete agreements ...
Our colleagues Lauri F. Rasnick and , attorneys in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers: "Implementing and Applying the Employee Choice Doctrine: Employers Focus on Forfeiture to Protect Their Company’s Assets."
Following is an excerpt:
Employers seeking to protect their competitive advantage and find an alternative method of influencing employees to not compete are increasingly relying on ...
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="120"] Barry A. Guryan[/caption]
In a recent case decided by the Massachusetts Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session (which typically handles restrictive covenant cases), Gillette lost its attempt to obtain a broad injunction against a former in-house counsel who became the General Counsel at a competitor, Shavelogic. In THE GILLETTE COMPANY v. CRAIG PROVOST, ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-0149 BLS 2 (Dec. 22, 2015), the Court found Gillette unlikely to succeed on its claims that the General Counsel, who left Gillette ten years ...
[caption id="attachment_2072" align="alignright" width="113"] Zachary C. Jackson[/caption]
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Hammond Division) recently ruled on cross motions for summary judgment in the case of E.T. Products, LLC v. D.E. Miller Holdings, Inc. (Case No. 2:13cv424-PPS). The dispute in that case stemmed from the acquisition of a portion of a company. Essentially, the purchaser claimed that the seller was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting him from soliciting the purchaser’s customers, and the seller ...
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="122"] Peter A. Steinmeyer[/caption]
In Bridgeview Bank Group v. Meyer, the Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed the denial of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against an individual who joined a competitor and then, among other things, allegedly violated contractual non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations.
As a threshold matter, the Appellate Court was troubled by what it described as Bridgeview’s “leisurely approach” to seeking injunctive relief. The Appellate Court noted that Bridgeview filed ...
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="117"] Zachary C. Jackson[/caption]
At the end of January, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a decision in the matter of Roth Staffing Companies, L.P. v. Thomas Brown, OEM ProStaffing, Inc., OEM of CT, Inc., and David Fernandez (Case No. 3:13cv216). Much of that opinion is devoted to analyzing the parties’ arguments about whether piercing the corporate veil was appropriate under the circumstances. However, the opinion also addressed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Trade Secret Claims in Employment Litigation: 2026 Update
- Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold Changes
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: 2025 Non-Compete Year in Review
- California Bill Would Proscribe Agreements Requiring Employees to Repay Certain Debts to Employers When Leaving Employment
- New Jersey Trade Secret Laws: 2025 Update