Shorter is better.

Why? The slang TL;DR comes to mind.

But it turns out there’s an educational component too — at least according to the results of a new study that examined workplace contracts.

In the study, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology and recapped by Insights by Stanford Business School, “the researchers found that workers whose contracts contained more general language spent more time on their tasks, generated more original ideas, and were more likely to cooperate with others. They were also more likely to return for future work with the same employer, underscoring the durable and long-lasting nature of the effect.”

In other words, contracts that contained pages upon pages of specific do’s and don’t for workers, ended up harming the employment relationship.

Instead, researchers found that “the more general contracts increased people’s sense of autonomy over their work.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve talked about the need to write employment contracts in plain English — something that is at the core of a book by Ken Adams whose work has appeared on this blog before.

It turns out that even “minimal changes”, in the words of one of the study’s authors, can have “important consequences.  Especially when it comes to behaviors that are notoriously difficult to include in contracts, such as increasing effort, task persistence, and instilling a stronger sense of autonomy, which leads to higher levels of intrinsic motivation. Reducing the specificity of contractual language can also increase creativity and cooperation.”

From a legal perspective, I’ll blame some lawyers for introducing some language in a contract that can be overkill at times.

(Don’t think lawyers are at least partly to blame for long contracts? Next time you see a “This space is intentionally blank” line in a contract, rest assured that it probably came from a lawyer.)

A few years ago, our practice group went through a standard separation agreement template to remove the “Whereas” clauses and the “Definitions”  — all in an attempt to simplify the agreement. The process took months.  Simplification does not necessarily mean increasing risk. It just takes more time.

Just ask Mark Twain (actually don’t — it’s a misattributed quote.)

Of course, you probably don’t need me to tell you that shorter is better. I just read the abstract and not the entire article.

After all: TL;DR.

doctorContinuing my review of new employment-related bills is a measure that limits the use of non-compete agreements for doctors.

Anyone who tracks bills knows that the name on the bill sometimes doesn’t match the content. Senate Bill 351 entitled “AN ACT CONCERNING MATTERS AFFECTING PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS” is a good case in point.

Seems innocuous enough, right? But through various amendments and compromises, it actually contains specifics on what can or cannot be in a non-compete agreement for physicians.  (For limits in other professions, see prior posts here and here.)

In general, the bill sets up a one year and 15 mile limit for physician non-compete agreements for any agreement after July 1, 2016.

The bill does not specify what is to happen to existing agreements that may have broader restrictions; will courts find that they violate the new ‘public policy’ of Connecticut, as the attorneys at the Working Together blog suggest? That remains to be seen.

For employers that have yet to draw up agreements, arguably there is a 60-day window to do so but given that this may now become law, it might be too little too late.  (I have not heard whether the governor intends to veto this measure.)

For existing agreements, it appears that the review will attempt to mirror common law with three standards (note that the term “covenant not to compete” is actually defined as being applicable only to physicians).  These standards are:

A covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: (A) Necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; (B) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such business interest; and (C) otherwise consistent with the law and public policy.

The bill goes on to state that:

A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, shall not: (A) Restrict the physician’s competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such physician practices;

Simple enough, right? Well, not exactly, the agreement also shall not:

(B) be enforceable against a physician if

(i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or

(ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.

That’s a lot of “ands” and “unlesses” if you’re keeping track at home.  But one thing I’m sure of is that a “for cause” termination allows for more flexibility.

But what is “for cause”? Can it be defined by the employer? Or is the legislature using another definition of “cause”? That, unfortunately, is a question for another day.

For now, physician groups, hospitals and other health care providers need to track signing of the measure and, if signed, review all existing agreements and form agreements for compliance with this new potential law.  The one-year/15 mile restriction should become the norm.

And if you have a strong opinion against this measure, now would be a good time to lobby the governor to veto it.