After years of debate in Beacon Hill Massachusetts

After years of debate in Beacon Hill, Massachusetts legislators agreed to reform the Commonwealth’s approach to non-competition clauses in a series of laws passed in the final hours of the 2018 legislature. Contractors get caught in the crossfire: Employers lose the battle when facts clearly indicate that the California ban on contracts that limit a person’s ability to engage in legitimate business, profession or trade is well known and known. The Federal Court of Appeals recently ruled that an exaggerated “no redistribution clause” in an agreement with a former employee could constitute an illegal trade restriction under California law. In Golden v., the bill prohibits, among other things, the application of non-competitive clauses to non-exempted employees, limits their term to only 12 months, and prohibits the use of “labor reserves” as an acceptable remuneration. In 2016, the White House published a report calling for measures to reform the laws on clauses not covered by the State. Since then, many states have amended their non-competition laws to specify when and under what circumstances an employer may subject an employee to a non-competition clause. Massachusetts employers, non-competitive reform here! – How is your organization coping with this? One month after the introduction of the new Massachusetts Competition Act, employers across the state will learn what many have predicted from the start – more questions than answers. Maryland is the last state to revise its noncompetition legislation to combat this practice and further restrict the types of workers who may be subject to these restrictive agreements. At the end of last year, we talked about a major reform in Massachusetts, and now three other states have enacted legislation in recent weeks. In New England, talentless reform continues, with Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island passing new laws. New England continues to reform its non-competition laws. This appeal allowed the plaintiffs to obtain an ex parte arrest warrant from a federal court. As Fisher Phillips has already noted, the new law adds several substantive and technical requirements that must be met in order to impose a non-competition obligation. The attorneys general of 10 states and the District of Columbia recently investigated the employment practices of eight fast-food franchises.

Join the Conversation

54 Comments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.