When it comes to physician employment agreements, non-compete provisions can be controversial and tricky. The use of these agreements is nonetheless increasing and evolving as hospitals and other groups try to protect their investments in successful medical practices, especially those that they helped launch and nurture. After assuming the risks and costs of building a medical practice, they obviously do not want to see employed doctors move their practices (and patients) to a competitor.
Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all passed legislation in recent weeks limiting employer’s ability to enter noncompetition agreements with low-wage employees in those states.
Following the White House’s Call to Action and responding to some high-profile cases, Maryland became the latest state to ban noncompetition agreements with low-wage workers.
As of January 1, 2020, Oregon employers with noncompetition agreements will be required to clear another administrative hurdle to ensure their noncompetition agreements remain enforceable. The new law requires, as a condition to enforcing a noncompetition agreement, that the employer provide the terminated employee with a signed, written copy of the noncompetition agreement within 30 days after their termination.
Can a former employer’s alleged misconduct defeat a request for injunctive relief against former employees when those departing workers take confidential information and clients to another employer? A federal appeals court recently addressed this question and decided not to apply the “unclean hands” doctrine against the employer in a trade secrets case, clearing the way for the injunction.
The recent California Court of Appeal ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., creates some doubt about the continued viability of employee non-solicitation covenants. However, this case is distinguishable and appears limited to its facts, where the particular employee's profession was the business of recruiting temporary travel nurses and accordingly the court court found that the non-recruiting restriction was an unlawful restraint of trade or profession.
One month into Massachusetts’ new non-competition law, employers throughout the Commonwealth are learning what many predicted from the beginning—there are a lot more questions than answers. As Fisher Phillips previously reported, the new law adds several technical and substantive requirements that must be met in order to enforce a non-competition agreement. Today we spotlight a few issues employers must now grapple with.
A federal appeals court recently ruled that an overbroad “no-rehire” provision in a settlement agreement with a former employee can be an unlawful restraint of trade under California law.
It has now been over two years since the Defend Trade Secrets Act went into effect. How have courts been applying the controversial civil seizure remedy?
It finally happened. After years of debate on Beacon Hill, Massachusetts law makers agreed to reform the Commonwealth’s treatment of noncompetition agreements. Among other things, the bill precludes enforcement of noncompetition agreements against non-exempt employees, limits their length to just 12 months, and precludes the use of “continued employment” as acceptable consideration. If signed by the Governor, the bill will apply to agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018.