For a brief moment, noncompete law was headed toward a single national rule. Then the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule was set aside, the agency abandoned its appeals, and the map splintered. While the federal rule is gone, the policy fight is not—it has simply relocated to state capitols and courtrooms.
The FTC proceedings gave
State legislatures have accelerated efforts to limit restrictive covenants for healthcare professionals, creating a changing and fragmented legal landscape. To understand where we’re headed, we reviewed state legislation around the country enacted over the past two years. Over this period of time, fourteen states have enacted laws limiting the use of restrictive covenants in the
California and New York recently enacted statutory restrictions aimed at “stay-or-pay” arrangements: California AB 692 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16608 & Cal. Lab. Code § 926) and the New York Trapped at Work Act (N.Y. Lab. Law art. 37, §§ 1050-1055), respectively. Such arrangements are contractual provisions that, while falling short of a
Enacted in 2018, the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (the “Act”) restricted employers’ use of non-competition agreements in a variety of ways, including requiring compensation during the post-employment restricted period and prohibiting enforcement against non-exempt employees or those terminated without cause. While the Act explicitly excludes covenants not to solicit from its definition of noncompetition agreements