Minnesota is joining the growing list of state legislatures targeting non-compete agreements, and doing so with one of the most aggressive laws in the nation on the subject. Included as part of the Senate Jobs and Economic Development and Labor Omnibus Budget Bill (S.F. 3035), the newly-enacted Minn. Stat. Section 181.988 (“Section 181.988”) categorically bans non-compete agreements with Minnesota workers
Continue Reading Gopher State Goes For Broke with Non-Compete Ban
On 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
The Attorneys General of ten states are investigating fast food franchisors for their alleged use of “no poach” provisions in their franchise agreements, according to a press release by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, and as reported by NPR. In a July 9, 2018 letter, the Attorneys General for New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requested information from eight fast food companies about their alleged use of such provisions. The letter states that the Attorneys General “have learned that certain franchise agreements used in our States and the District of Columbia . . . may contain provisions that impact some employees’ ability to obtain higher paying or more attractive positions with a different franchisee.” In other words, the agreements purportedly prohibit one franchisee of a particular brand from hiring employees of another franchisee of the same brand.
Continue Reading State Attorneys General Investigate Fast Food Franchisor “No Poach” Agreements
At a time when an ex-employee’s newly created company was subject to an injunction prohibiting misappropriation of his former employer’s supposed trade secret, the new company allegedly used that confidential information on a few occasions in the course of providing services. The former employer sued. Although the trial court found no violation of the injunction, that ruling was reversed on
Continue Reading Sales Of $8,000 Stemming From Trade Secret Misappropriation Results In Liability For $1.3 Million
A consultant of a company entered into a consulting agreement with a competitor. The scope of his consultancy of the first company involved dairy-permeate processing systems and the second involved lactose-processing systems. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota found that these businesses were sufficiently distinct such that disclosure of information regarding one business would not violate the non-compete agreement prohibiting
Continue Reading There Are Many Ways to Milk a Cow and Not All Are Protected Trade Secrets
In a decision marked not-for-publication, a Minnesota Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s invalidation of a two-year non-competition agreement signed by a long time employee. He was discharged 11 years after he signed. He then went to work for a competitor of his former employer. The majority reasoned that the non-compete lacked independent consideration since it was not executed by
Continue Reading Divided Appellate Court Voids Employer’s Non-Compete Covenants Because One Employee Did Not Sign
By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas
As part of our annual tradition, we are pleased to present our discussion of the top 10 developments/headlines in trade secret, computer fraud, and non-compete law for 2013. Please join us for our complimentary webinar on March 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. P.S.T., where we will discuss them in greater detail. As with all
Continue Reading Top 10 Developments/Headlines in Trade Secret, Computer Fraud, and Non-Compete Law in 2013
On June 3, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant former employees in a dispute arising out of the sale of a business to the plaintiff former employer, and the seller’s subsequent starting of a competing business which
Continue Reading Minnesota Federal Court Dismisses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claim Based on Departing Employee’s Downloading of Customer List
New proposed legislation introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives would invalidate effectively all employee non-compete agreements if passed.
On February 11, 2013, Democratic-Farmer-Labor party members Joe Atkins and Alice Hausman introduced H.F. No. 506. The bill was read and referred to the Committee on Labor, Workplace and Regulated Industries, a committee chaired by Rep. Sheldon Johnson (DFL-St. Paul). The
Continue Reading California Style Non-Compete Legislation Introduced In Minnesota
While treats are in abundance on Halloween, a Minnesota employer recently received a trick when a federal court denied its temporary restraining order application. A Minnesota federal court held that an ex-employer’s apprehension that a former employee violated or would violate a non-compete and confidentiality agreement was entirely speculative and, thus, did not warrant a TRO. Sempris, LLC v. Watson
Continue Reading Speculative Fears Insufficient for Non-Compete Temporary Restraining Order Against Former Employee
