Recent Developments Again Call for Timely Review of Restrictive Covenants

27 June 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: John F. Birmingham Jr

We have suggested before that employers should view non-competition and other restrictive agreements as “live” documents, warranting regular examination to ensure they are deployed with appropriate precision and account for frequent legal developments. Four such recent developments once again suggest that a review, and most likely revision, of your confidentiality, trade secret, and non-competition agreements would be a timely and appropriate exercise to undertake.

First, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) requires that certain whistleblower protection language, allowing the disclosure of trade secrets in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, be included in agreements. If such language is not part of new agreements, an employer may not recover exemplary damages or attorney fees for a trade secret violation under the DTSA.

Second, both the Obama administration and state agencies have signaled a growing hostility toward non-competition agreements. In May 2016, the White House issued an analysis suggesting that non-compete agreements are overused and may hurt the economy. Multiple states have followed suit. For example, a publisher recently agreed to eliminate non-compete agreements as part of a settlement with New York authorities.

Third, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other federal agencies have condemned confidentiality provisions that discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activity, or reporting a violation of the law.

Fourth, and finally, individual states are passing or updating restrictive covenant statutes to address changing policy objectives. For example, Utah recently passed a new statute limiting non-compete agreements entered into after May 10, 2016, to no more than one year in duration for businesses with over 20 employees. The Utah law also requires employers to pay the attorney’s fees and other costs if they are unsuccessful in obtaining enforcement. By contrast, Idaho has recently amended its non-compete statute to shift the burden of proof to restricted employees to show they have no ability to harm their previous employer’s legitimate economic interests. This revision goes into effect next month.

For all of these reasons, employers would be wise to take a fresh look at their employment policies and agreements containing restrictive covenants. This review should include:

  1. Adding language that complies with the DTSA whistleblower immunity provision
  2. Modifying language to promote compliance with the directives of the NLRB and other agencies
  3. Adding language – such as a requirement that departing employees answer questions about subsequent employment – that enhances practical enforceability
  4. Examining the existing approach to non-competition agreements, including who signs such agreements and what activity is restricte
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services