ARTICLE
25 August 2015

Webinar Recap! State Specific Non-Compete Oddities Employers Should Be Aware Of

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
We are pleased to announce the webinar "State Specific Non-Compete Oddities Employers Should Be Aware Of " is now available as a podcast and webinar recording.
United States Intellectual Property

We are pleased to announce the webinar "State Specific Non-Compete Oddities Employers Should Be Aware Of " is now available as a podcast and webinar recording.

In Seyfarth's sixth installment, attorneys Michael Baniak and Paul Freehling discussed the significant statutory changes to several jurisdictions' laws regarding trade secrets and restrictive covenants and pending legislation proposed in additional jurisdictions over the past year.  As trade secrets and non-compete laws continue to evolve from state to state in piecemeal fashion, companies should continually revisit their trade secrets and non-compete strategies in light of the evolving legal landscape and legislative trends.

As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a list of key takeaway points, which are listed below.

  • Enforceability of non-compete, non-solicit, and confidentiality covenants in employment agreements depends primarily on the applicable statutes, and pertinent judicial decisions and conflict of laws principles, regarding (a) the acceptable breadth of such covenants, and (b) appropriate balancing of the legitimate business interests of employers, employees, and the public; enforceability requires constant vigilance in updating the covenants as the law, business and employment evolve, often very rapidly.
  • Because each jurisdiction's version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as enacted — it has been adopted in one form or another in the District of Columbia and each of the 50 states except New York and Massachusetts– is unique, all relevant jurisdictions' versions must be analyzed.
  • Oddities in the law of restrictive covenants include the following: (a) hostility in a few states to non-competes and/or non-solicit covenants in general, (b) in some states (whether by statutory provision or judicial fiat), certain employees are exempt from such covenants,  (c) there are disparities in various courts' willingness to "blue pencil," reform, or invalidate covenants deemed overbroad as written, and (d) there are variations in different courts' views as to whether only actual disclosure, or also threatened or inevitable disclosure, of trade secret or confidential information will be enjoined.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More