Against the backdrop of the FTC’s rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide and the lawsuits challenging that rule, many states have considered legislation narrowing or outright banning non-competes. Minnesota recently followed California, Oklahoma and North Dakota in adopting legislation banning all employment-based non-compete agreements. Washington state adopted additional requirements for using non-competes with its residents. And, Colorado recently limited the use
Continue Reading Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Proposed Non-Compete Ban
Following in the footsteps of its neighbors 
Over the course of the past several years, several states have banned or severely restricted the ability of businesses to bind low-wage workers to post-employment restrictive covenants. Since 2007, Oregon has banned non-compete agreements for all employees except those who are exempt (as defined by the state’s overtime payment statute) and whose annualized compensation at the time of termination exceeds the median income of a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee’s termination ($56,119 per year based on most currently-available data). In 2016, Illinois passed a statute banning non-compete agreements with low-wage workers (defined in Illinois to be non-governmental workers making less than the greater of the prevailing federal, state, or local minimum wage or $13 per hour). In 2018, contained within a wider-ranging non-compete bill, Massachusetts also banned employers from entering into non-compete agreements with non-exempt employees, as those employees classification is defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as employees under age 18, paid or unpaid student interns, or other short-term student employees who are enrolled in school.
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 
