Remote Work and the Impact of Employee Mobility on Noncompetes
Employers should familiarize themselves with the terms of their noncompete agreements and be strategic and thoughtful about whom they ask to sign them.
July 28, 2021 at 11:30 AM
6 minute read
Late last week, President Biden issued an executive order that made clear his administration will be scrutinizing noncompete agreements and viewing them unfavorably. The executive order encourages the Federal Trade Commission to ban or substantially limit noncompete agreements in employee contracts, citing a desire to increase competition among businesses as well as promote economic growth, innovation, and racial equality. In light of the executive order and the laws that many states have enacted recently regulating noncompetes, employers should familiarize themselves with the terms of their noncompete agreements and be strategic and thoughtful about whom they ask to sign them.
Historically, regulation of noncompete agreements has been left to the states. President Biden's executive order follows the recent trend among states that have enacted legislation in favor of employee mobility, hindering the enforcement of noncompete agreements. For example, earlier this year, the District of Columbia passed a law (D.C. Code §23-209) banning noncompete agreements that will become effective later this year when it is included in an approved district budget and financial plan. Washington, D.C. joins California (Cal. Business & Professions Code §§16600-16602.5), Oklahoma (OK Stat. §15-219A), and North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code §9-08-06) as jurisdictions that generally will not enforce post-employment noncompete agreements, subject to certain limited exceptions. In 2020, Virginia (Va. Code §40.1-28.7:8) restricted the ability of employers to enforce noncompete agreements against employees who earn less than the average wage in that state, and Washington (RCW §§49.62.005-900) restricted noncompete agreements for employees who earn less than $100,000 per year. In 2019, Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. Ti. 26, c. 7, §599-A), New Hampshire (RSA §§275:70, 275:70-a), Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws §§28-59-1-3), and Maryland (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §3-716) passed similar restrictions for employees who earn below a certain threshold. As states continue to enact noncompete legislation, employers should be aware that these laws will continue to limit their ability to impose post-employment restrictions.
|Impact of Remote Work
Employers that required their employees to sign noncompete agreements before the pandemic clearly did not contemplate how many employees would rapidly and abruptly begin working from home because of COVID-19. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 35% of employed workers in the United States were working from home in May 2020—five times the number of employees estimated to have worked from home in 2019. Employers that allow employees to work a flexible schedule may continue to have employees working remotely into perpetuity.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Sea Change': NY Equal Rights Measure May Prompt Flurry of Lawsuits if Approved by Voters
Walking the AI Tightrope: Communicating Innovation Without Undermining Core Values
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250