Which States Are Likely to Enact Laws Restricting Non-Compete Agreements in 2018?
Several states in recent years have enacted laws that have been designed, in varying degrees, to limit non-competes, including California, Illinois, and Nevada. Which states and cities are most likely to do the same in 2018?
The New Hampshire and New York City legislatures have introduced bills that seek to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements with regard to low-wage employees. Under New Hampshire’s Bill (SB 423), a “low-wage employee” is defined as one who earns $15.00 per hour or less. The New Hampshire Bill was introduced on January 24, 2018 and is scheduled for a hearing in February. Under New York City’s bill (Introduction 1663), a “low-wage employee” means all employees except for manual workers, railroad workers, commission salesmen, and workers employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity whose earnings are in excess of $900 dollars a week. In addition, the New York City Bill would prohibit employers from “requir[ing] a potential employee who is not a low-wage worker to enter into a covenant not to compete, unless, at the beginning of the process for hiring [the employee], [the] employer disclos[es] in writing that [the employee] may be subject to such a covenant.” The New York City Bill was introduced by the City Council on July 20, 2017 and filed on December 31, 2017.
Other more sweeping proposals to restrict the use of all non-compete agreements have been introduced in Pennsylvania and Vermont. The scope of Vermont’s Bill (HB 556) appears to be broader than Pennsylvania’s and prohibits, with exceptions, any agreement “not to compete or any other agreement that restrains an individual from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.” HB 556 was introduced on January 3, 2018 and is currently in Committee. Pennsylvania’s Bill (HB1938) prohibits (also subject to some exceptions), an agreement between an employer and employee that “is designed to impede the ability of the employee to seek employment with another employer.” The Bill includes provisions that would award attorneys’ fees and damages (including punitive damages) to those employees who prevail in litigation against an employer concerning the non-compete. HB 1938 also would require that any litigation involving a resident of Pennsylvania be decided in a Pennsylvania state court under Pennsylvania law. The Pennsylvania Bill was introduced and referred to Committee on November 27, 2017.
Massachusetts and Washington have also introduced legislation that would add requirements for employers seeking to use non-compete agreements. In Massachusetts, six separate bills have been introduced, three of which (HB 2371,SB 840, and SB 1017) would require employers to include a “garden leave clause” (or “other mutually agreed upon consideration”) in the non-compete agreements. The garden leave clause would require employers to pay former employees, on a pro rata basis, either 50 percent (under HB 2371) or 100 percent (under SB 840 and SB1017) of their earnings for the duration of the restricted period. The Massachusetts Bills were introduced and referred to Committee on January 23, 2017. In Washington, lawmakers recently introduced a bill (HB 1967) which would require employers to “disclose the terms of the [non-compete] agreement in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the acceptance of the offer of employment or, if the agreement is entered into after the commencement of employment, the employer must provide independent consideration for the agreement.” Additionally, HB 1967 would allow an employer to recover actual damages, statutory damages of $5,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs if an employer requires an employee to sign a non-compete agreement that contains provisions that the “employer knows are unenforceable.” The Washington Bill was introduced in the House on February 2, 2017 and now is in Committee in the Senate.
At this point it is too early and difficult to predict whether the proposed laws will garner enough support to clear the necessary legislative and executive hurdles to be enacted. Sometimes state bills seeking to restrict the use of non-competes fail to gain enough traction. Indeed, in 2017 both Maryland’s HB 506 and New Jersey’s SB 3518 died in their respective legislative houses soon after being introduced; Massachusetts especially has a track record of introducing bills intended to limit the use of non-compete agreements that fail to become laws. Of the bills still in play, the Washington bill is furthest along and seems like it may get passed, though it too may die in Committee. In any event, employers across all states (and in these states especially) should stay tuned and continue to draft narrowly tailored and enforceable non-competes.