Could Non-Compete Agreements Be Banned in Connecticut?

LR-Conference-Table-Men-FolderMany employers believe that non-compete agreements, also known as restrictive covenants, can be an important tool in protecting confidential information, trade secrets, and other legitimate business interests. They allow business owners to share vital information with key employees without fearing that they have merely educated their competitors if the key employee jumps ship.

Nor under current law are non-competes open-ended. Courts restrict them temporally (rarely longer than two years) and geographically (only to areas where the employer can reasonably claim a market that could be affected by competition). There is another restriction imposed by the courts; non-compete agreements will only be enforced against former employees who present true competitive risks. Simply put, a non-complete ought to be enforced against a key research and development manager, but not against a secretary or receptionist. A final restriction is that the employer must give some consideration for the non-compete, such as the job itself at the time of hire, or a promotion or salary increase during employment.

But there is a contrary school of thought that non-compete agreements limit a person’s free choice of employer, stifle innovation and burden unemployment compensation programs. These considerations have led to prohibition of non-compete agreements in California and North Dakota. Connecticut also enacted a very limited ban in 2007, Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-50a and 31-50b. Section 31-50a prohibits security companies from preventing guards from switching to a new company if the location being guarded changes security vendors. Section 31-50b prevents employers in the broadcast industry from imposing non-competes on employees other than sales or management, or from requiring employees to disclose recruiting offers that they may have received when their contracts expire.

These statutes have a more narrow purpose than fostering innovation. The security guard statute allows continuity of the guard force at a particular location, presumably enhancing safety and security. The broadcast industry statute seems designed to foster the free movement of on-air “talent” from one station to another. Broader prohibitions on non-competes have been introduced from time to time, but have not gotten much traction in the Legislature.

Now Massachusetts is seriously considering a restriction on non-compete agreements. Governor Deval Patrick originally introduced a ban, which would have applied even to existing agreements, apparently regardless of whether the employer had already paid for them. The proposal has been scaled back to permit non-competes only for FLSA-exempt employees, and for a duration no longer than six months. The more limited non-solicitation covenants, which prohibit solicitation of employees or customers (sometimes called no-raid provisions), are not affected.

Connecticut’s legislative session is over for now, but since the Connecticut and Massachusetts governments are relatively like-minded, probably more so than are California and North Dakota, successful legislation in Massachusetts may give new impetus to the ban-the-covenant movement in Connecticut.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page