D.C. Takes the Ax to Employer Noncompetes

15 February 2021 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Paul R. Monsees

Last month, the mayor of the District of Columbia signed a near-total ban on noncompete provisions used by D.C. employers to protect their business interests. We have previously written about a possible federal noncompete ban and indications that states are moving in the same direction. The new D.C. law will raise a number of questions that may not be resolved until courts sort through many difficult enforcement issues arising out of the language. The bill has been sent to Congress for required approval (because D.C. is not a state) and is expected to take effect in mid-March.

The ban will apply to employers “operating” in the District of Columbia (other than the D.C. or federal governments), who have at least one employee. That’s right, one employee is enough. Covered employees are those “who perform work in the district on behalf of an employer” and the ban will also apply to a prospective employee whom an employer “reasonably anticipates” will perform work in D.C. There are limited exceptions, including licensed physicians earning at least $250,000 per year and lay members of religious organizations engaged in religious functions.

The scope of the noncompete ban will be very broad, prohibiting restrictions imposed in noncompete agreements as well as workplace policies that apply both to current employment as well as post-employment conduct. For example, the ban will prohibit a more typical noncompete that kicks in once employment ends.  But it will also prohibit employers from enforcing policies that prohibit current employees from moonlighting with another employer or from operating their own business while employed. That is an extraordinary reach that could interfere with what most employers believe is a basic employee duty – to give their full time and attention to the interests of the employer while on the job.  At least the legislation will have a carve-out permitting prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets, and noncompete provisions applicable to the seller of a business. There is no provision excluding nonsolicitation protections from the ban, but we expect that those will also be permitted.

While the law will “only” ban noncompete agreements entered into on and after the law’s effective date, it does not provide the same clarity about workplace policies that ban working for another person or operating an employee’s own business.

The new D.C. law will ban retaliation against employees who refuse to agree to noncompete provisions and who complain about noncompete provisions or restrictive workplace policies. It also prescribes administrative penalties for employer violations and mandates written notice to employees.

Several questions about the language immediately come to mind. For example, an employee is someone who “performs work in the district on behalf of an employer.” Similarly, an employer is someone “operating in the district.” Given the close proximity of Maryland and Virginia to the District of Columbia, there are many employers based in those states whose employees “perform work” in D.C. Think, for example, of a salesperson based in Maryland who calls on clients in the district.  Will that salesperson automatically be covered by the new law or will that depend on how often the employee visits D.C., how long the visits last or other factors? There also will be questions about what conduct is covered by the ban. For example, it bans agreements or policies that “prohibit” an employee from simultaneously or subsequently working for another. What about employer provisions that limit, but do not prohibit, that work?

We will keep an eye on this development and provide further analysis as the guidance becomes available.

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