ARTICLE
1 July 2021

Nevada Amends Non-Compete Statute Protecting Low-Wage Workers And Imposing Award Of Attorneys' Fees For Certain Violations

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.
As changes in restrictive covenants laws sweep the nation, Nevada is one of the latest jurisdictions to update its non-compete statute. Last month, the state legislature amended the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act to...
United States Nevada Employment and HR

As changes in restrictive covenants laws sweep the nation, Nevada is one of the latest jurisdictions to update its non-compete statute. Last month, the state legislature amended the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act to add new requirements for enforceability of non-competes.

The amendment makes the following changes in Nevada law:

  • Following what appears to be a growing trend, the amendment prohibits non-competes for low-wage employees; under Nevada's version, such agreements are unenforceable against individuals who are paid solely on an hourly basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities.
  • The new statute also requires that when a court revises an overly broad covenant, it must consider any undue hardship that the covenant will cause the restricted party.
  • In just a slight change, the amendment goes a bit further than the pre-existing prohibition on covenants that restrict an individual's right to do business with customers that they did not solicit: the amendment now clarifies that employers may not bring an action to enforce such an unenforceable provision (which would seem obvious, but the legislature apparently saw fit to make that crystal clear).
  • Most notably for employers, the amendment now provides that a court shall award attorneys' fees and costs to an employee if the employer imposed a non-compete on a low-wage worker as defined above, or violated the preceding prohibition on restricting the individual from accepting work from customers that they did not affirmatively solicit. Of particular note is that this fee-shifting applies even if it is the employee who brings a suit challenging a non-compete, rather than the employer attempting to enforce the same. In other words, employers must carefully draft their agreements to ensure that their restrictive covenants do not violate the statute, as an employee can bring a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate an overbroad covenant and be awarded fees, even if the employer ultimately wouldn't have litigated the issue.

The amendment goes into effect on October 1, 2021, so employers should engage counsel before that date to ensure that their agreements are compliant with the new requirements.

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