minnesota non-compete legislationOn February 22, 2022, the Minnesota legislature came one step closer to banning non-compete clauses under certain circumstances. On that date, the Minnesota House Labor, Industry, Veterans and Military Affairs Finance and Policy Committee passed HF999.

HF999 renders non-compete clauses in Minnesota void and unenforceable unless either of two circumstances are present: (1) upon termination, the employee earned an annual salary that is more than the median family income for a family of four in Minnesota (as determined by the most recent US Census Bureau data), or (2) the employer agrees to pay, on a pro-rata basis, fifty percent of the employee’s highest annual salary over the past two years for the duration that the employee is subject to the non-compete clause.
Continue Reading Minnesota Advances Partial Ban on Non-Compete Clauses

In the final webinar for 2021, Seyfarth attorneys Dawn Mertineit, Eric Barton, and Joshua Salinas discussed new legislation and the enforcement of non-competes. Any company that seeks to use non-compete and non-solicitation agreements to protect its trade secrets, confidential information, client relationships, goodwill, or work forces needs to stay informed of the varied and ever-evolving standards in each state.

As
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! Overview of Non-Compete Legislation and Enforcement Issues from 2021

For the fourth time in six years, Oregon is in the news again for an update to its non-compete laws.

Prior Oregon Law

Oregon last updated its non-compete laws just two years ago, with a statute that requires employers to provide terminated employees with a signed, written copy of their non-compete within 30 days of termination. That new obligation was in addition to other Oregon-specific requirements, including:

  1. Similar to Massachusetts’ 2018 law, the employer must inform the employee that a non-compete is a condition of employment in a written employment offer received at least two weeks before the employee’s first day, or the agreement must entered into upon a “bona fide” promotion;
  2. The employee must be engaged in administrative, executive, or professional work and must (a) perform predominantly intellectual, managerial or creative tasks, (b) exercise discretion and independent judgment, and (c) be salaried;
  3. The employee’s gross annual salary and commissions at the time of termination exceeds the median family income for a four-person family; and
  4. The duration of non-compete duration could not exceed 18 months.


Continue Reading Oregon Blazes a Trail of Non-Compete Amendments

Continuing our annual tradition, we have compiled our top developments and headlines for 2019 & 2020 in trade secret, non-compete, and computer fraud law. Here’s what you need to know to keep abreast of the ever-changing law in this area.

1. Another Year, Another Attempt in Congress to Ban Non-Competes Nationwide

Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) introduced legislation in 2019 entitled the Workforce Mobility Act (“WMA”). The WMA seeks to ban non-compete agreements outside of the sale of a business or dissolution of a partnership.

Not only would the WMA abolish covenants not to compete nationwide, outside of the extremely narrow exceptions highlighted above, but it would also provide the Department of Labor (DOL) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with broad enforcement power. If enacted, the legislation would empower the FTC and DOL to enforce the ban through fines on employers who either fail to notify employees that non-compete agreements are illegal or who require employees to sign covenants not to compete. Additionally, the WMA establishes a private right of action for all employees allegedly aggrieved by a violation of the WMA.

The WMA contains a carve out for parties to enter into an agreement to protect trade secrets. As currently drafted, the WMA does not abrogate the scope of protections provided by the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Presently, there are no generally applicable federal restrictions on non-compete agreements, and enacting such a law would have to pass Constitutional muster. We expect to see continued activity at the federal legislative level to attempt to ban or limit the use of non-competes.

2. New State Legislation Regarding Restrictive Covenants


Continue Reading Top 10 Developments and Headlines in Trade Secret, Non-Compete, and Computer Fraud Law for 2019 & 2020

Cross-posted from the Carpe Datum Law blog. 

In our May blog post, we took issue with the broadcast statement that ‘consumer privacy law was sweeping the country and that other states were jumping on the California Consumer Privacy Law (CCPA) bandwagon to enact their own state law.’ The problem as we saw it, was that the truth behind these sensationalistic statements was a bit more nuanced than people were led to believe. Most states, we found, that introduced consumer privacy legislation simply did not follow through, either by outright killing the legislation (MS) or by taking a step back with a wait and see approach (see TX). Nevada, by contrast, did neither. Instead, its legislature enacted its own consumer privacy solution, through SB 220, or as we call it, ‘the limited privacy amendment.’ We’ve opted to discuss Nevada’s approach here primarily because of its more restrictive application online and because its October 1, 2019, operational date is a full three months before the CCPA becomes operational.

First, the limited privacy amendment is not the CCPA. Let’s make that perfectly clear. True, it was modeled on the opt-out section of the CCPA, but it isn’t a mirror copy as it amends existing law. There are three primary areas operators conducting business over the Internet need to be aware of, when evaluating compliance measures:  
Continue Reading Nevada: Bucking the Wait and See Approach to Consumer Privacy Law

In Seyfarth’s fourth installment in its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Kristine Argentine, Eric Barton, and Katelyn Miller focused on the enforcement of non-competes and how the difficulty of enforcement of these restrictive covenants vary by state, especially based on recent legislation in various states.

As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:

Continue Reading Webinar Recap! Enforcement of Non-Competes: Increasing Difficulty Depending on State

On July 11, 2019, Governor Sununu signed S.B. 197 into law. S.B. 197 prohibits an employer from requiring an employee who makes 200% of the federal minimum wage ($14.50) to sign a non-compete agreement restricting the employee from working for another employer for a specified period of time or within a specific geographic area. Any “noncompete agreement entered into between
Continue Reading New Hampshire Governor Bans Non-Compete Agreements for Low-Wage Employees

Washington state has joined the ranks of an ever-growing number of states that impose significant restrictions on employee non-compete agreements. On May 9, 2019, Governor Jay Inslee signed House Bill 1450, titled “An Act Relating to restraints, including noncompetition covenants, on persons engaging in lawful professions, trades, or businesses,” into law. The Act will go into effect on January 1, 2020. We reported on the bill in detail in March.

This change to Washington law is significant. Businesses with employees or independent contractors in the state should revisit their non-compete agreements and take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the Act by the end of this year. Among other things:
Continue Reading Washington State Governor Signs Law Severely Limiting Non-Competes

Cross-Posted from The Global Privacy Watch Blog

In Part 1 of our ‘Texas Joins the Privacy Fray’ series, we focused on the Texas Consumer Privacy Act. Here, we shine the light on the Texas Privacy Protection Act (HB 4390).

The TXPPA is distinguishable from both the TXCPA and the CCPA because the applicability threasholds are different. For the TXPPA to apply, a business must 1) be doing business in Texas; 2) have more than 50 employees; 3) collect personally identifiable information (“PII”) of more than 5,000 individuals, households, or devices (or has it collected on the business’s behalf); and 4) meet one of the following two criteria—the business’ annual gross revenue exceeds $25 million; or the business derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from processing PII.
Continue Reading And Texas Joins the Privacy Fray – Part 2 (or, Everything is Bigger in Texas…)

Cross-Posted from The Global Privacy Watch Blog

Last month, Texas saw the introduction of not one, but TWO privacy bills in the Texas state legislature: The Texas Consumer Privacy Act (TXCPA) and the Texas Privacy Protection Act (TXPPA). With news of this likely meeting with a collective groan and shoulder shrug, we do have some good news for you.

Both bills’ foundations are set with familiar CA Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) language. Unfortunately, this is also bad news because they both suffer from the same problems found in the CCPA – we’ll explain below. It’s also still early in the game, with the bills having just been filed in the state legislature. Given that there is time in the legislative session for amendments to be made and especially considering the ‘ring-side’ view Texas lawmakers have to the CA legislative and Attorney General rule/procedure process currently unfolding, it would be unreasonable not to expect changes. Finally, the bills are reactive responses to the national (or international) focus on privacy issues of late and may allow impacted businesses a grace period, as we’ve seen in the CCPA. In this blog, we shine the light on the first of these bills: The Texas Consumer Privacy Act.
Continue Reading And Texas Joins the Privacy Fray – Part 1 (or, the Elephant in the room just got a LOT bigger…)