
John Barry
Partner
John P. Barry is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Group and the Higher Education and Title IX Group.
John is an experienced trial lawyer who has appeared in courts across the U.S. He is sought out by clients to litigate and/or provide counsel for their most sensitive, sophisticated and important restrictive covenant, trade secret and employment matters. He is able to quickly dissect the issues and recognize the pressure points of how a case will unfold before a judge, jury, or administrative agency. He regularly "jumps in" to assist clients with emergent situations involving an executive's departure, a mass exodus (or raid), the planned hire of an employee or team of employees from a competitor, or claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation or the like.
Clients call on John for his knowledge and experience in many contexts, including restrictive covenants in incentive compensation programs, acquisitions, investments and agreements between business partners, vendors and customers. Restrictive covenant matters he handles include: non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-disparagement, judicial modification (blue-penciling) of agreements, clawback and other remedial provisions. He has handled these issues in all 50 states and internationally.
Subscribe to all posts by John Barry
John Barry will be participating in The Sedona Conference Working Group 12 on Trade Secrets (WG12) Annual Meeting. The conference will take place virtually from Monday, November 9 to Tuesday, November 10 from 11:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET each day. This meeting will advance WG12’s first set of commentary drafting team efforts towards non-partisan … Continue Reading
Louisiana’s amended non-competition statute (La. R.S. 23:921), which meaningfully expands the application of employment-related non-compete restrictions within the state, went into effect on August 1, 2020. This amendment expressly expands the reach of Louisiana non-compete law by, among other things, adding corporate shareholders, partners in partnerships, and members of limited liability companies, to the category … Continue Reading
It is not often that a United States Court of Appeals issues a decision on trade secrets, much less one involving the review of a bench trial that drew legal conclusions on the scope of trade secret law and the propriety of compensatory and punitive damages. On April 30, 2020, in Advanced Fluid Sys., Inc. … Continue Reading
Washington is the most recent state to adopt a law restricting the use of noncompetition agreements. The new law (HB 1450), which was signed by Governor Jay Inslee on May 8, 2019 and is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020, will add unique challenges for employers and further complicate the restrictive covenant … Continue Reading
The New York State Office of the Attorney General (“NYAG”), working with the Illinois Attorney General, announced on September 18, 2018 that it had reached a settlement with WeWork Companies, Inc. (“WeWork”) regarding its use of non-compete agreements. The WeWork settlement follows earlier non-compete related settlements by the NYAG with, among others, Jimmy John’s Gourmet … Continue Reading
The use of social media sites, like LinkedIn, can be a helpful tool to reach a customer base. But a recent district court case out of Minnesota exemplifies the need to ensure that LinkedIn usage complies with the user’s employment agreement. Specifically, in late July 2017, a Minnesota court in Mobile Mini, Inc. v. Vevea granted … Continue Reading
Nevada’s Assembly Bill 276, which became effective on June 3, 2017 (the “NV Law”), articulates new rules and requirements for employee restrictive covenants, some of which fundamentally alter the State’s prior practices. The NV Law addresses consideration generally in non-competition covenants and in circumstances where employees are terminated as the result of a reduction of … Continue Reading
On February 7, 2017, the Third Circuit affirmed a partial preliminary injunction order barring two former ADP employees from soliciting customers for their new employer for one year. This decision is notable as it affirmed the propriety of electronic acknowledgements and rejected a creative challenge to ADP’s electronic signature system. See ADP, LLC v. Lynch, … Continue Reading
Effective January 1, 2017, the Illinois Freedom to Work Act (the “Act”) will prohibit private sector employers from entering into non-competition agreements with employees earning a “low wage.” The Act defines low-wage employees as those who earn the greater of: (a) the federal ($7.25 per hour), state ($8.25 per hour), or local (currently, $10.50 per … Continue Reading
Today (May 11, 2016), President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, for the first time creating a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The law has sweeping implications and is expected to have a noticeable impact on trade secret jurisprudence. In addition, the law adds new obligations for employers … Continue Reading
On April 11 and April 27, 2016, the Senate and House, respectively, passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA). The DTSA, for the first time, provides a federal cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. This significant development has large implications for companies and employers nationwide. As such, Proskauer has prepared … Continue Reading
2014 was another busy year for developments in New Jersey employment law, including in ten key areas—whistleblowing, pre-employment inquiries/background checks, amendments to the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), LAD litigation, wage and hour, the Family Medical Leave Act, sick leave, states of emergency, arbitration, and “unemployment discrimination.” Read our Top 10 newsletter to learn more about … Continue Reading