The Evolving Legal Landscape of Non-Compete Clauses: Implications for Employers and Employees

Non-compete clauses have long been a contentious issue in employment contracts, balancing the need to protect businesses’ proprietary information and the employee’s right to pursue opportunities elsewhere. Traditionally, non-compete agreements were designed to prevent employees from joining competing firms or starting a rival business for a specified time after their employment ended. However, recent legislative reforms and legal developments are significantly reshaping the enforceability and scope of these clauses, particularly at both federal and state levels.

A Shift in Federal Policy: The FTC’s Proposed Ban on Non-Competes

In early 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements, which would mark a monumental shift in employment law across the United States. The FTC’s rationale behind this ban is grounded in the belief that non-compete clauses unfairly restrict workers’ mobility and suppress wages. According to the agency, eliminating non-competes could boost wages by nearly $300 billion annually and improve working conditions by fostering a more dynamic and competitive labor market.

The rule broadly defines non-compete clauses, extending to agreements that have the “effect” of restricting workers from seeking or accepting new employment. This includes agreements that might not be explicitly labeled as non-competes but operate similarly, such as overly restrictive confidentiality agreements. The FTC’s proposal has garnered both praise and criticism, with proponents arguing that it levels the playing field for workers, while opponents—especially within the business community—warn that it could undermine companies’ ability to protect trade secrets and investments in employee training.

State-Level Reforms: A Patchwork of Laws

While the FTC’s proposed rule is making headlines, various states have already taken steps to restrict or regulate non-compete agreements. Historically, non-compete clauses were governed by state law, leading to significant variations in enforceability. States like California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have long prohibited non-compete agreements except in very limited circumstances. In contrast, other states have allowed non-competes but imposed restrictions regarding the geographic scope, duration, and the necessity for the employer to demonstrate a legitimate business interest.

California, in particular, has been at the forefront of protecting employee mobility, strictly prohibiting non-compete clauses in nearly all employment contracts for decades. California Business and Professions Code § 16600 renders void any contract that restrains someone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business, with very few exceptions. Employers who attempt to enforce non-competes in California often find themselves facing legal challenges, including claims of unfair business practices.

States like Illinois, Washington, and Oregon have followed suit by implementing reforms that limit the applicability of non-compete clauses, often imposing income thresholds, notice requirements, and limits on the duration of the restriction. For example, Illinois’ Freedom to Work Act (2022) prohibits non-compete agreements for employees earning less than $75,000 per year and requires the employer to provide adequate consideration for the agreement. Similarly, Washington’s Non-Compete Act (2019) limits the enforceability of non-competes to employees earning above $100,000 annually and restricts agreements to a maximum of 18 months.

Judicial Scrutiny: A Heightened Burden for Employers

Recent case law has also reflected a growing trend of courts scrutinizing non-compete clauses, emphasizing that they should not unduly burden employees. Courts now frequently apply a stricter standard of review, examining whether a non-compete is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest or whether less restrictive measures, such as confidentiality agreements or non-solicitation clauses, could achieve the same goal.

A seminal case, Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (9th Cir. 2020), set an important precedent by emphasizing that non-competes must be reasonable in both time and scope. The court held that employers must demonstrate a clear and direct threat to their legitimate business interests for a non-compete clause to be enforced. This decision highlights the importance of narrowly tailoring non-compete agreements, ensuring that they are not overly broad in their geographic scope, duration, or the range of activities they restrict.

Moreover, in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the state’s strong public policy against non-compete clauses. The court struck down a non-compete agreement involving an accounting firm’s employee, ruling that the clause violated California’s Business and Professions Code § 16600. This case serves as a reminder that even well-drafted non-competes can run afoul of state laws if they unduly restrict an individual’s ability to pursue their chosen profession.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

With these significant changes on the horizon, both employers and employees must adapt. Employers should review and revise their non-compete agreements to ensure they are compliant with federal and state laws. This includes evaluating whether the restrictions imposed by the non-compete are genuinely necessary to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, or customer relationships. Additionally, businesses should consider alternative protective measures, such as non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements, which are often viewed more favorably by courts.

Employees, on the other hand, should be aware of their rights and understand the legal framework governing non-compete agreements in their jurisdiction. Workers should carefully review any contractual clauses that may limit their future employment opportunities and seek legal advice if they believe a non-compete agreement is overly restrictive or unenforceable under state law.

Conclusion

The legal landscape surrounding non-compete clauses is evolving rapidly, with both federal and state governments pushing for more employee-friendly reforms. While the FTC’s proposed rule has not yet been finalized, its potential impact, combined with ongoing state-level reforms, signals a major shift in the enforceability and scope of non-compete agreements in the United States. Employers should take proactive steps to ensure their contracts are legally compliant, while employees should remain vigilant about their rights and protections in an increasingly dynamic labor market.

Like what you read? Want to see more SBM YLS content? Subscribe below!

Ali A. Berro, ESQ., is a YLS District One Representative and an Associate Attorney at Detroit Legal Group specializing in Contract law and Criminal defense.