For those of you that haven’t read the 91-page primary decision last Tuesday from the Connecticut Supreme Court in Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, there’s a lot to unpack from an enforcement of trade secret perspective, which goes a bit beyond the scope of this blog.
But buried deep in the decision is an interesting
As I continue the updates on legislation that is making its way at the General Assembly, it’s time to revisit a bill that has been floated in prior years — a bill banning many non-compete agreements.
House Bill 5269 is this year’s version and it still has a number of restrictions that employers should
I know. It’s nearly July 4th weekend. No one REALLY wants to hear about employment law in Connecticut.
So for this post, let’s go right over the border to New York where something very interesting is taking place.
Last week, the NY legislature passed a ban on non-compete agreements. Now, before you rip up such
Connecticut is considering a ban on non-compete agreements and expanding paid sick leave.
Continue Reading The Battle Over Non-Compete Agreements, Paid Sick Leave, and More
It’s been a while since I talked about federal employment law legislation — in part because nothing ever seems to pass Congress nowadays. It wasn’t that long ago, that Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act (10+ years). But it feels like a lot longer than that.
So enter Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. Last Friday,
Back in June, I talked about the standard that courts will follow in deciding whether or not to enforce a non-compete agreement between an employer and an employee. (Go read it here first.)
But many employers want to know something more straightforward: How long can I make the restrictive covenant in my agreement; in
The New York Times this morning has an article that suggests that non-compete agreements are being used increasingly in a broader array of jobs.
His evidence? Well, the article doesn’t cite that.
Though, to the reporter’s credit, in noting the discussion going on in Massachusetts over legislation
The busy season for the Connecticut General Assembly is continuing with the final push for bills now underway.
Another bill that has been sneaking below the radar is House Bill 6658. The bill, entitled “Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements”, has passed the Judiciary Committee, again without being referred to the Labor & Public Employee committee. It is now pending before the House.
The bill would apply to all employers in the state and, for the first time, attempt to regulate all restrictive covenants or non-compete agreements through a law. (Previously only broadcast employees and security guards were covered by such restrictions.) Only agreements created after October 1, 2013 would be covered. Currently, the rules regarding such agreements have been developed through caselaw.
The bill allows an employer to use such an agreement “if (1) the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business, and (2) prior to entering into the agreement or covenant, the employer provides the employee a reasonable period of time, of not less than ten business days, to seek legal advice relating to the terms of the agreement or covenant.”
It’s the second part of the bill that should concern employers because it goes far beyond current caselaw. It would create a new cause of action (or way an employee can bring a lawsuit) for employers that violate the law and allow for the recovery of damages and attorneys fees.
Any person who is aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement or covenant to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was entered into and specifically enforce the agreement or covenant as limited.
Continue Reading Bill Targets Non-Compete Agreements But Would Also Create New Cause of Action
It’s been a crazy week here for reasons I hope to share in a future post.
But in the meantime, the world of employment law still continues. Here are some items worth reading that I had hoped to talk about further. This brief recap will have to do for now.
With the blog approaching its fifth (!) anniversary later this year, I thought it was time to revisit some subjects that I covered in the blog’s infancy and update them.
One such story from way back on September 14, 2007, was a new law that prohibited non-compete agreements by security guards. Back then, I stated: