September 18, 2018

September 18, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2018

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New Jersey Seeks To Limit Use of Non-Competes

On May 10, 2018, the New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee advanced Assembly Bill A1769, a bill that seeks to provide stricter requirements for the enforcement of restrictive covenants.

If enacted, the legislation would permit employers to enter into non-competes with employees as a condition of employment or within a severance agreement, but such non-competes would only be enforceable if they meet all of the requirements set forth in the legislation. Thus, if enacted, employers will have to comply with the following requirements in order for a New Jersey non-competition agreement to be enforceable:

  1. If the non-compete is entered into in connection with commencement of employment, the employer must disclose the terms in writing to the prospective employee by the earlier of a formal offer of employment, or 30 business days before the commencement of the employee’s employment;

  2. If the non-compete is entered into after commencement of employment, the employer must provide the agreement to the employee at least 30 business days before the agreement is to be effective;

  3. The non-compete agreement must be signed by both the employer and the employee and expressly state that the employee has a right to consult with counsel;

  4. The non-compete shall not be broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer, including the employer’s trade secrets or other confidential information, such as sales information, business plans, and customer or pricing information;

  5. The time period of the non-compete must not exceed 1 year following the date of termination of employment;

  6. The non-compete must be reasonable in geographic scope, meaning that it must be limited to the geographic area in which the employee provided services or had a material presence during the two years preceding the date of termination, and the non-compete may not restrict the employee from seeking employment in other states;

  7. The non-compete shall be reasonable in the scope of the proscribed activities and limited to only the specific types of services provided by the employee at any time during the employee’s last two years of employment;

  8. The agreement must state that the employee will not be penalized for challenging the enforceability of the non-compete;

  9. The agreement should not contain a choice of law provision that would have the effect of avoiding the requirements of the legislation;

  10. The agreement shall not waive the employee’s substantive, procedural, or remedial rights provided under the legislation or any other law, or under the common law;

  11. The non-compete shall not restrict the employee from providing a service to a customer of the employer if the employee does not initiate or solicit the customer; and

  12. The agreement shall not be unduly burdensome on the employee, injurious to the public, or inconsistent with public policy.

The bill broadly defines “[r]estrictive covenant” as any agreement between an employer and an employee under which the employee “agrees not to engage in certain specified activities competitive with the employee’s employer after the employment relationship has ended.” It is unclear whether the bill intends to apply only to traditional non-compete agreements or whether it is also intended to apply to other forms of restrictive covenants, such as non-solicit and/or anti-raiding provisions. It appears, however, that the bill is intended to apply only to non-competes as the proposed legislation contains a provision stating that a restrictive covenant may be presumed necessary where the legitimate business interest cannot be adequately protected through an alternative agreement, such as “an agreement not to solicit or hire employees of the employer; an agreement not to solicit or transact business with customers, clients, referral sources, or vendors of the employer; or a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement.”

Moreover, the bill provides that any non-compete shall be unenforceable against all non-exempt employees, as well as other types of short-term or low-wage employees.

An employer who seeks to enforce the non-compete would be required to notify the employee in writing within 10 days after the termination of the employment relationship of the employer’s intent to enforce the non-compete. Failure to provide such notice shall void the agreement; however, notice need not be given in the event the employee was terminated due to misconduct.

Unless the employee was terminated for misconduct, the bill would also require employers who enforce a non-compete to pay the employee during the restricted period 100 percent of the pay that the employee would have been entitled and make whatever benefit contributions would be required in order to maintain the fringe benefits to which the employee would have been entitled.

If enacted, the legislation would allow employees to bring a cause of action against any employer or person alleged to have violated the act. In addition to injunctive relief, employees would be permitted to recover liquidated damages, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

As with many other New Jersey employment laws, the bill would require employers to post a copy of the act or summary in a prominent place in the work area.

While the act would go into effect immediately upon enactment, it would not apply to any agreement in effect on or before the date of enactment.

If enacted, Assembly Bill A1769 would severely curb the use of non-competes in New Jersey. Employers should be aware of the multitude of requirements they would have to establish in order to enforce a non-compete, including the requirement to pay employees 100 percent of their salary during the time the non-compete is in effect. Thus, in the event the bill is signed into law, employers should now begin to consider implementing other types of agreements aimed at protecting their legitimate business interests, such as confidentiality agreements and non-solicit agreements in lieu of non-competition agreements.

©2018 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Daniel Levy, Epstein Becker Law Firm, Labor and Employment Litigation Attorney
Member

Daniel Levy is a Member of the Firm in the Health Care & Life Sciences and Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practices, in the firm's Newark office. He was recommended by The Legal 500 United States (2016, 2017), in the Labor and Employment Disputes (Including Collective Actions): Defense category, and named to the New Jersey Rising Stars list (2010, 2012, 2015 to 2017) in the areas of Health Care and Employment & Labor.

973-639-8292