Tag Archives: noncompete

So far this year, there have been 64 noncompete bills pending in 25 states — excluding the two pending federal noncompete bills, D.C.’s new law to ban most noncompetes, and any proposed bills that are circulating, but have not yet been filed. Five bills have died — leaving the current tally at 59 noncompete bills still pending in 21 states. Today’s post covers the four bills pending in Massachusetts.
So far this year, there have been 59 noncompete bills pending in 23 states1 — excluding the two pending federal noncompete bills, D.C.’s new law to ban most noncompetes, and any proposed bills that are circulating, but have not yet been filed. Four bills have already died — each in a state that had only one pending bill — leaving the current tally at 55 bills pending in 19 states. Today’s post covers the four bills pending in Minnesota.
Three and half months into 2021, and there have been 59 bills pending in 23 states (not counting 2 federal bills, a new DC law, or any proposed bills that are circulating, but have not yet been filed). Four bills have already died — each in a state that had only one pending bill — leaving the current tally at 55 bills pending in 19 states. Today’s post covers the two bills pending in Louisiana.
There are currently 45 state bills pending to modify noncompete law across 21 states — as well as two new federal bills, President Biden’s plan to limit the use of noncompetes, and the FTC’s consideration of regulatory limitations. Iowa has two pending bills.
There are currently 45 state bills pending to modify noncompete law across 21 states — as well as two new federal bills, President Biden’s plan to limit the use of noncompetes, and the FTC’s consideration of regulatory limitations. Iowa has significant legislative activity, including five publicly filed bills.
With all of the changes at the state level (45 bills in 21 states, plus D.C.’s near-total ban, which is, as of yesterday, now officially adopted and pending funding, likely in the fall, it seems), the federal efforts — spearheaded by Senator Chris Murphy — continue to inch forward. During the Senate the confirmation hearing of Julie Su (currently the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency) for the position the Deputy Labor Secretary, Senator Chris Murphy reminds us that his bill to ban noncompetes is still in the works — and that, ultimately, he expects the FTC to regulate noncompetes.
45 state bills to modify noncompete law are pending across 21 states. Sixteen of them propose to follow the trend of banning noncompetes for so-called “low-wage workers” (however that may be defined) and four propose total bans of employee noncompetes. In this series, we will be providing details on all 45 bills (and any new ones that are filed) — and we will be simultaneously updating our Changing Trade Secrets | Noncompete Laws page. Today’s installment covers the eight Connecticut bills.
What concept did President Obama, President-elect Biden, and 47 states – including every single state to consider the issue in the past decade – reject? A ban on noncompetes.

What bill did the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Labor & Workforce Development just vote to approve? Yep: a ban on noncompetes.
Protecting trade secrets, confidential business information, goodwill, and any other recognized legitimate business interests does not happen by accident. Companies need to plan. And, when one of the key tools is taken away (i.e., noncompetes), they need to look more closely at the remaining options to ensure they have the protections they need and that fit their circumstances. We discuss them in this post.
As set forth in the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, G.L. c. 149, § 24L, “[a] noncompetition agreement [entered into on or after October 1, 2018] shall not be enforceable against . . . employees that have been terminated without cause or laid off . . . .” Id. at § 24L(c).

“Without cause” is not defined in the statute. Worse, its meaning – particularly when juxtaposed against the category of “laid-off” workers – is unclear.