The Supreme Court in the UK, the highest court in the country, last week ruled on a restrictive covenant case for the first time in 100 years [Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 (3 July 2019)]. It has clarified important points on interpretation, the key takeaway being it will now be easier for employers to enforce covenants against departing employees.
Covenants Must Be Necessary to Protect Employer’s Interests
It has long been established in the UK, that restrictive covenants are an unlawful restraint of trade unless they go no further than is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate proprietary interests. The Supreme Court recognized as such in quoting the colorful language of a court decision from the 15th century criticizing a plaintiff employer looking to enforce a covenant:
Continue Reading
On July 11, 2019, Governor Sununu signed 
On May 14, 2019, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law HB 2992, which, as of January 1, 2020, requires an employer to provide a terminated employee with a signed, written copy of his or her non-competition agreement within 30 days of his or her termination date. Failure to do so will render the agreement voidable and unenforceable in the state of Oregon.
While it is well-settled law that an attorney cannot be bound by an agreement restricting the right to practice law, that does not insulate attorneys from all restrictive covenants. As we have 
Even before the California Supreme Court decided Edwards in 2008, employers knew all too well the woes of attempting to enforce non-competes against California employees. Edwards simply reaffirmed California’s long-standing policy in favor of employee mobility, finding that employee non-competition agreements are typically void in California unless they fall within one of the exceptions to Business and Professions Code section 16600. But this need not become the fate of every non-compete; notwithstanding Edwards and recent California decisions applying the state’s notorious statute, section 16600, it may be possible for employers to enforce non-competition forfeiture provisions by including them in deferred compensation top hat plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
As we’ve 
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 
Caramel Crisp LLC, the owner of Garrett Popcorn Shops (“Garrett”), the renowned Chicago-based purveyor of deliciously flavored popcorn, recently filed suit in federal court in Chicago against its former director of research and development, Aisha Putnam, alleging that she misappropriated the company’s trade secrets, including its recipes for Garret’s famous popcorn, after she was fired. Putnam was hired in 2014 and was eventually promoted to the role of Director of Research and Development, where she had access to some of Garrett’s most confidential information and trade secrets. In that role, she was required to sign a confidentiality and non-compete agreement, which, among other things, required her to return all of Garrett’s confidential information upon the termination of her employment.
Academics and advocacy groups—including nonprofit organizations and several major labor unions—have filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission asking the agency to initiate the rulemaking process and ban non-compete agreements. The petitioners advocate regulations “to prohibit employers from presenting a non-compete clause to a worker (regardless of whether the worker is classified as an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent contractor’), conditioning employment or the purchase of a worker’s labor on the worker’s acceptance of a non-compete clause, or enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a non-compete clause against a worker.”