Massachusetts Legislature Passes Comprehensive Noncompetition and Trade-Secrets Reform

06 August 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Donald W. Schroeder

The Massachusetts General Court has passed legislation that, if signed by the governor, will comprehensively reform the law governing employee noncompetition agreements and trade-secret misappropriation. If enacted, these laws will become effective October 1, 2018, giving Massachusetts employers only two months to assess their current practices and adapt to the new laws.

Noncompetition Agreements

Under the new legislation, noncompetition agreements must be written, signed by both the employer and the employee, and expressly state that the employee has the right to consult with counsel prior to signing. Additionally, agreements entered into while the employee is already working for an employer must be supported by “fair and reasonable consideration independent from the continuation of employment.”

Limits on Noncompetition Agreements

The legislation also codifies certain limits on the scope of noncompetition agreements. Noncompetition agreements can only be used to protect an employer’s trade secrets, confidential information, and goodwill. The noncompetition period cannot extend more than one year beyond the employee’s departure. The period, however, can extend to two years if the employee has breached a fiduciary duty owed to the employer or has misappropriated the employer’s property. In geographic terms, a noncompetition agreement will be presumed reasonable if it is limited to the area in which the employee provided services or had a “material presence or influence” in the two years prior to her or his termination. An agreement must also be reasonable in “the scope of the proscribed activities in relation to the interests protected,” which appears to invite courts analyzing noncompetition agreements to conduct an agreement-specific balancing test.

Requirement to Compensate Employees While the Agreement Is in Effect

Of particular note, noncompetition agreements must provide for compensation, even to a departed employee, while the noncompetition period is in effect. The new law appears to contemplate that employees will generally be entitled to a pro rata portion of at least 50 percent of their highest annualized base salary within the two years preceding their termination.

Other Provisions

The legislation specifically empowers courts to “blue pencil” or revise an unenforceable noncompetition agreement. And an unenforceable noncompetition provision will not void the broader contract or agreement of which it is a part.

Contractual choice-of-law provisions will not likely shield employers from the effects of this Massachusetts legislation. A choice-of-law provision that would have the effect of circumventing this statute will be void if the employee was a resident of or employed within Massachusetts the day of her or his termination and at least 30 days immediately prior.

Importantly, this legislation is limited to noncompetition agreements; it does not apply to other types of restrictive covenants, such as non-solicitation agreements and nondisclosure agreements, among others.

Also, the legislation does not address the so-called “material change” doctrine, which has been used by some courts applying Massachusetts law to invalidate noncompetition agreements because an employee’s job duties and compensation materially changed after she or he executed a noncompetition agreement.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Massachusetts’ trade-secrets law has largely been a common-law creature. With the new legislation, however, Massachusetts will join virtually every other jurisdiction in the country and adopt a statutory scheme modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Among other things, the determination of whether information is a trade secret would likely no longer depend upon courts conducting a six-factor balancing test. And the adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act should dispel any lingering controversy as to whether a trade secret must remain in “continuous use” to warrant protection in Massachusetts, as such a requirement is specifically rejected in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Conclusion

This legislation potentially marks an important development in Massachusetts labor and employment law and could change the legal landscape regarding noncompetition agreements and trade-secret misappropriation for years to come. Many of the new provisions are consistent with existing common law and should be of little surprise. Nevertheless, with the potential effective date only two months away, time is of the essence. The law will only apply to noncompetition agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018. Still, employers should assess their current practices and noncompetition agreements and determine whether any changes need or should be made. Employers in other states should stay alert to see if this new law starts a trend in other states.

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

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.