The District of Columbia Council unanimously passed, and on January 11 Mayor Bowser signed, The Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 the most aggressive prohibition against non-competition agreements in the country. When effective, the new law, which will apply to all employers with employees in the nations capital, will completely bar, with few exceptions, both post-employment covenants not to compete and non-competes that apply to current employees.
Under the District of Columbias unique home rule law, this legislation is likely to take effect after several subsequent steps occur. Its ultimate effective date may not be until October of this year, after the Districts annual budget is approved and takes effect.1
BACKGROUND
There has been a general trend in the past several years to restrain what many have considered as the overly aggressive use of post-employment non-competition agreements by some businesses to unnecessarily restrict employee movement. In response, a number of states have imposed limitations on their use:
However, in all cases at the state level at least, only post-employment non-competition covenants have been regulated, leaving employers free to forbid disloyal competitive activity by current employees. The new D.C. law bans this second kind of non-compete, as well as the first type.
THE D.C. LAWS PROHIBITIONS
In the likely event the D.C. law becomes effective, employers that operate in the District will not be permitted to require or request an employee to sign an agreement that contains a non-competition provision. The law declares that any non-competition provision contained in an employment agreement executed after the laws effective date shall be void as a matter of law and unenforceable.
The breadth of the laws prohibitions is illustrated by the wide scope of its definition of non-competition provision. A prohibited non-competition provision is defined as a provision of a written agreement between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from being simultaneously or subsequently employed by another person, performing work or providing services for pay for another person, or operating the employees own business.
In addition to forbidding contractual terms, the law also will prohibit employers from maintaining policies that prohibit[] an employee from: (1) [b]eing employed by another person; (2) [p]erforming work or providing services for pay for another person; or (3) [o]perating the employees own business.
Thus, clearly within the ambit of the laws prohibitions are commonly found contractual terms and employer policies that prevent an employee from simultaneously working for a competitor, and/or for any other employer, while they are employed with their primary employer.
While not explicit in the language of the D.C. law, by forbidding terms that prohibit employees from providing paid services to another person during their employment, it appears to make unlawful the standard clauses often used by businesses requiring employees to devote their full-time efforts to their position with and duties to that employer.
BAR AGAINST NON-COMPETES RESTRAINING CURRENT EMPLOYEES
Employers are likely to have concerns about being prevented from requiring current employees to refrain from competing with them during their employment, a common policy used by many businesses with good reason. The ban seemingly cuts against existing protections D.C. employers have under the common law duty of loyalty and fiduciary duties of officers and certain other employees.
The D.C. law will leave employers with few means for preventing acts of employee disloyalty, beyond merely responding to an act of disloyalty after the damage already has been inflicted. Where that disloyal act involves disclosure of a trade secret or other proprietary or confidential business information, any protection available to the employer necessarily would be incomplete: it is impossible to un-ring the proverbial bell. Once valuable information is disclosed, it cannot completely be recovered, making the damage permanent. By removing from the toolbox of employers an effective means of preventing disclosure to a competitor before it happens, the D.C. law will leave important interests of employers inadequately protected. In this regard, much may depend on any regulations that the Mayor may publish, as Section 104 of the law requires.
For example, at present, it is not clear whether the law will permit an employer to require a current employee to disclose the identity of other businesses for which the employee is providing services.2 Nor does the law address whether such an employer could contact a competitor for which its employee is working to warn it of consequences for using confidential information or trade secrets disclosed by that employee. These steps, along with the right to seek an injunction, would provide some measure of protection. However, until regulations are published and/or the law is interpreted by the courts, their availability is uncertain.
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
Retaliation Prohibited. The D.C. law also contains broad anti-retaliation provisions. Under its provisions employers may not retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an employee for:
Notice to All Employees Required. All D.C. employers must provide written notice to their D.C. employees of the substance of the new law using the following language: No employer operating in the District of Columbia may request or require any employee working in the District of Columbia to agree to a non-compete policy or agreement, in accordance with the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020.
Such notice must be provided:
Given the burden imposed by the strict timelines mandated for notice-giving under the law, it is easy to foresee a raft of unintentional violations of the notice provisions, each of which would subject the offending employer to liability for civil penalties (discussed below).
Record-Keeping Required. The Act requires the Mayor to issue rules to implement the Act, including rules requiring employers to keep and retain records relating to compliance with the Act. These rules have not yet been promulgated.
EMPLOYERS RETAIN SOME PROTECTIONS
Existing Agreements are Grandfathered. The D.C. law will apply prospectively only, so non-competition covenants that already are in place on the laws effective date can be enforced if lawful under D.C.s pre-existing common law standards.
Lawful Non-Disclosure Restrictions Remain Enforceable. The law expressly preserves the right of D.C. employers to protect confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information, [a] client list, customer list, or a trade secret if its non-disclosure restriction is otherwise lawful. As noted above, however, this ostensible protection will be incomplete if an employer cannot restrain its employees from working for competitors, as will be the case once the law becomes effective.
Exception for Sale of a Business Retained. Likewise, the law explicitly permits [a]n otherwise lawful provision contained within or executed contemporaneously with an agreement between the seller of a business and one or more buyers of that business wherein the seller agrees not to compete with the buyers business.
Narrow Exception Created for Medical Specialists. The law permits providers of medical services to require non-competition clauses in employment agreements with physicians, but imposes advance notice and minimum salary conditions, among others.
Status of Non-Solicitation Agreements is Not Clear, but May be Unaffected. Oddly, while the law is very detailed in many respects, it makes no specific mention of agreements not to solicit customers and/or employees despite the importance and common usage of such terms by employers. Thus, it would appear that such agreements are not affected by the law and continue to be enforceable under existing common law standards. One may argue, though, that non-solicit agreements are simply a form of non-compete, and should be treated as such under the new D.C. law. Greater clarity is needed on this important question.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
The law offers both administrative and judicial enforcement vehicles. Aggrieved employees can file suit and seek damages and attorneys fees for violations of the law. In addition to damages and attorneys fees, the law provides for assessment of civil penalties of between $500 to $3,000 per proven violation including violations of notice and record-keeping requirements in civil actions brought by employees.
Alternatively, complaints of violations may be filed with the Mayor, who, along with the Attorney General, is charged with enforcement authority. The Mayor is empowered to assess an administrative penalty of from $350 to $1,000 for each violation of the law, but for each violation of its anti-retaliation provisions the penalty assessed against an employer must be $1,000. Before being subject to an administrative penalty, the employer is entitled to notice and an opportunity for a formal hearing.
WHAT NOW?
D.C. Employers. Prudent employers in the District must assume that the D.C. law banning non-competition agreements will become effective in the near future and should begin the process of modifying employment agreements and policies for future use. Fortunately, as long as non-solicitation agreements are deemed permissible under the law, tools remain to protect most legitimate business interests. A combination of carefully crafted non-disclosure (NDA) and non-solicitation agreements safeguarding an employers customers and employees should offer a good measure of protection for its goodwill and proprietary information from illicit disclosure and use by current and former employees.
Employers may be justified in arguing that only a non-compete effectively mitigates the prospect that a former employee, or a current employee planning to leave, and a grasping competitor will conspire to steal its proprietary information, customer goodwill and employees, and that NDAs and non-solicits protect them only after information or customers already have been stolen. However, the D.C. Council and legislatures of three states have made a policy decision that the cost to employees and the public outweighs the interest of employers.
All U.S. Employers. It appears that it is not only D.C. employers who must be on high alert for the imminent demise of post-employment non-compete restrictions on employees who are newly hired or execute new employment agreements. All employers nationwide should brace themselves for a re-energized campaign at the federal level, led by President Biden, to curb, if not extinguish, the use of post-employment non-competition agreements in the employment setting.
In its waning days, the Obama White House published a call to action urging state legislatures to curb the use of non-competes at the state level, arguing that such restrictions suppressed wages. At around the same time, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Antitrust Division of the Justice Department released guidance for human resources professionals on recognizing collusive wage practices among employers and promising to act against such collusion. While some states responded by enacting laws to restrict non-competes (discussed above), during his campaign President Biden made the elimination of most non-competition agreements by the federal government a policy goal of his administration.
Even during the Trump Administration, the FTC conducted public workshops to examine whether there is a sufficient legal basis and empirical economic support to promulgate a Commission Rule that would restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. In addition, the Justice Department filed a number of antitrust actions against employers, including several Silicon Valley giants, that entered into no-poaching agreements
In addition to action taken and promised by the executive branch, The Workforce Mobility Act was first introduced in both houses of Congress in 2018 to ban most employee non-compete agreements. It was reintroduced in 2019 as S. 2614 and H.R. 5710, both of which had bi-partisan sponsorship. Hearings were held in the Senate, but the bill failed to advance. Separately, Sen. Marco Rubio introduced his own bill in 2019, the Freedom to Compete Act, to limit the application of non-competes to exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but no formal action was taken. New federal legislation is expected to be introduced during this Congressional session.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the new D.C. law is probably indicative of a wave of even broader restrictions in the near future. Whether in the form of forthcoming administrative or legislative action, it seems likely that non-competition agreements may be subjected to federal regulation and perhaps largely banned or severely restricted nationwide.
While employers will have to adjust to this new reality should it come to pass, a combination of well drafted non-disclosure and non-solicitation policies should offer necessary protection for legitimate business interests.
Moreover, national and multi-state employers may actually welcome a federal solution to replace the existing patchwork of state common law and statutory rules that govern restrictive covenants. Although federal rules would not entirely eliminate differences from state to state as the D.C. Councils recent action in banning restrictions on current employees illustrates, they would at least reduce the complexity of this area of law.
1 First, there is a 30-day Congressional review period after the laws transmittal to Congress, during which Congress can object by joint resolution and which President Biden would then need to sign to keep the law from taking effect. Given the Presidents outspoken opposition to non-competition agreements, even if Congress unexpectedly were to formally object to the law, it is highly unlikely that the President would agree to that objection. The ban on non-competes, therefore, seems virtually certain to become effective this year, likely upon the effective date of the Districts approved annual budget, which could occur as late as October 1, 2021. (D.C. law requires that for a new law to become effective, its fiscal effects must be presented when the annual budget is considered by the D.C. Council).
2 If an employer is to exercise the right to protect its confidential business information through lawful means, as the law provides (see below), such disclosure would be essential.
[View source.]
Read the original post:
- Freedom Caucus: The Fight Club of Congress - The Christian Science Monitor - September 29th, 2023 [September 29th, 2023]
- History shows a better strategy than shutdown for reducing the deficit - MinnPost - September 29th, 2023 [September 29th, 2023]
- Haake: For the freedom caucus, chaos is the point - Chicago Tribune - September 29th, 2023 [September 29th, 2023]
- Appeals court sets hearing date on Missouri abortion rights initiative ... - Missouri Independent - September 29th, 2023 [September 29th, 2023]
- Things to Know About the Billionaire Card - a Diamond-Encrusted ... - CEOWORLD magazine - September 29th, 2023 [September 29th, 2023]
- Report on Countries that are Candidates for Millennium Challenge ... - Millennium Challenge Corporation - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- The Freedom Caucus' shutdown threat recalls tactics of past House ... - NPR - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- Opinion | Joe Biden op-ed: 60 years after March on Washington, we ... - The Washington Post - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- Universal Basic Income: Fiscal fantasy or AI necessity? - talkbusiness.net - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- Hurtling toward a fiscal cliff - POLITICO - POLITICO - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- Governor Glenn Youngkin - Virginia Governor Ralph Northam - Proclamation - August 28th, 2023 [August 28th, 2023]
- New Zealand - The Heritage Foundation - January 4th, 2023 [January 4th, 2023]
- Singapore Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI ... - January 4th, 2023 [January 4th, 2023]
- Mexico Economy: Facts, Population, GDP, Corruption, Business, Trade ... - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Economic liberalism - Wikipedia - November 7th, 2022 [November 7th, 2022]
- Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- In first debate, Healey and Diehl clash over the economy, abortion and Trump - WBUR News - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Election 2022: What to know about California propositions - Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Vice President Kamala Harris calls on Texans to protect reproductive and voting rights during Austin visit - 25 News KXXV and KRHD - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- How Republicans in the Rio Grande Valley are using faith to draw in Latino voters - CBS News - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Letter to the editor: Pierce will work for values that matter to Senate District 25 - Press Herald - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Letter to the editor: Left needs heads examined - Washington Times - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Book Banning, Curriculum Restrictions, and the Politicization of U.S. Schools - Center For American Progress - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Judge considers halting enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban - The Times of Northwest Indiana - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Texas Youth Summit draws conservative to plot the culture war - The Texas Tribune - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- The Weight of Trump - The Atlantic - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Tanzania and Zambia want to upgrade the 'Uhuru Railway' but can they? - The Conversation Indonesia - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Power games: Plans to shift to a centralised market in power sector must take into account concerns of all stakeholders - The Indian Express - September 20th, 2022 [September 20th, 2022]
- Inside the Academic-Freedom Crisis That Roiled Florida's Flagship - The Chronicle of Higher Education - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Liz Trusss energy price cap handout will put her talent for U-turns to the test - The Guardian - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- FM stresses joint Arab action to overcome regional crises - Jordan Times - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- The contract of Nigerian citizenship and diaspora voting - Guardian Nigeria - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Study ranks Midland as top economic freedom area in Michigan - The Center Square - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Another Shocking Decline in Life Expectancy | The Fiscal Times - The Fiscal Times - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Liz Truss Has Been Elected As The New Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom. Replace Boris Johnson - Nation World News - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Why the Left Is Learning to Love the Military - The Atlantic - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Millions of dollars spent secretly at B.C. Legislature - theBreaker - theBreaker - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Economy forecast to grow by 7-7.5% in current fiscal Times of India - English Bharat Times - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- The Union Government Is Arbitrarily Squeezing States Fiscal Freedom To Borrow - The Wire - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- House Freedom Caucus calls on McCarthy, McConnell to reject 'lame duck' spending this fall - Fox News - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- JAGs 7th and most ambitious season yet is titled 'The Freedom Practice' - Vermont Biz - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Why is the Michigan Medicine nurses' union abridging freedom of speech? - WSWS - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Board of Elections certifies recall effort to oust East Cleveland's mayor - News 5 Cleveland WEWS - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Bangabandhu's thoughts on economic freedom are still relevant - The Financial Express - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Overview: A Year of Taliban Rule in Afghanistan - Voice of America - VOA News - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Rochester enters the era of the $250,000 police officer - Rochester City Newspaper - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- India aims to be developed nation in 25 years: Modi - Gulf Times - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- EDITORIAL: Welcome to new thinker on the block - Coeur d'Alene Press - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- Letters to the editor for Sunday, August 14, 2022 - News-Press - August 15th, 2022 [August 15th, 2022]
- The Serious Lack of Good Governance and Economic Freedom: Root Causes of Sri Lanka's Ongoing Turmoil - Heritage.org - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- The FOIA backlog continued to grow last year - Federal News Network - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- More money rolling into state's casinos, less tax being collected The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- EDITORIAL: Fentanyl, death by the dose - Washington Times - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- Liz Truss's tax cuts are not inflationary - The Telegraph - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- The UN wants to educate children it will succeed only if it feeds them first - The Guardian - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- Sunburn The morning read of what's hot in Florida politics 7.27.22 - Florida Politics - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- A first look at the medium-term fiscal program - BusinessWorld Online - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Financial Giants Reject West Virginia's Claims That They're Boycotting Fossil Fuels - The Epoch Times - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Five Waldo County towns ready to vote on broadband - Republican Journal - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Indian Navy expected to spend 70 pc of capital budget in domestic procurement this fiscal: Rajnath Singh - ThePrint - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- NGO letter opposing T.42 amendments in appropriations - Government Accountability Project - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Digital services provided by foreign firms to be taxed from tomorrow - The Kathmandu Post - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Ayushman health ID card: A need for fine tuning! - Times of India - July 19th, 2022 [July 19th, 2022]
- Windfall tax on crude goes against incentive of more pricing freedom - The Financial Express - July 9th, 2022 [July 9th, 2022]
- Diversity, equity and inclusion update: June 2022 issue | CU Boulder Today - CU Boulder Today - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Menendez, Schiff alarmed that Biden again approves US military aid to Azerbaijan - Armenian Weekly - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Egypt is cozying up to Russia. It's time for the US to step in. - Atlantic Council - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- PM to say to G7 leaders: We must keep up our resolve on Ukraine - GOV.UK - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Where have all the Christians gone? | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette - Williamsport Sun-Gazette - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- President Biden waives Section 907 restrictions on US aid to Azerbaijan - Armenian Weekly - June 24th, 2022 [June 24th, 2022]
- Senate retirement bill benefits wealthy Americans - The Hill - June 24th, 2022 [June 24th, 2022]
- Ambassador Kierscht Interview with The Key - US Embassy in Mauritania - USEmbassy.gov - June 24th, 2022 [June 24th, 2022]
- Roe v. Wade overturned: How will it affect abortion access in Indiana - The Herald-Times - June 24th, 2022 [June 24th, 2022]
- Constricted devolution of fiscal power - The Kathmandu Post - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Public office and accountability issues in Nigeria - Daily Trust - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Shaheen, Portman Participate in Discussion Hosted by Dartmouth on Russia's Unprovoked Invasion of Ukraine | US Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire... - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Congress Ignores Pressing National Business While It Obsesses on Jan. 6 - The Epoch Times - June 11th, 2022 [June 11th, 2022]
- Ukraine Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI ... - June 11th, 2022 [June 11th, 2022]
- How would India fare on a modified misery index? Better than US & UK, worse than most others - ThePrint - June 11th, 2022 [June 11th, 2022]
- "Don't Want RBI To Become Extension Of Government": Ex CEA Arvind Subramanian - NDTV Profit - June 11th, 2022 [June 11th, 2022]