Skip to content
  • Home
  • Services
    • Legal Compliance and Risk Mitigation
    • Representation – Litigation Defense
    • Safety & Health (including COVID-19) Services
    • Remote Work Solutions
    • Technology and the Workplace
    • EEO/Harassment and Discrimination Prevention
    • Pre-Hire, Background Checks and Hiring
    • Wage & Hour
    • Employee Relations
    • Managing Leaves of Absence
    • Employee Benefits
    • Contracts and Agreements
    • Labor Relations/CBA/Union/NLRA
    • Workplace Investigations
    • Training
  • Team
    • Sima Ali, Esq.
    • Karen Lynch, Esq.
    • Kerri Beatty, Esq.
    • Andrea Moss, Esq.
    • Mary McCarthy
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Connect
  • Home
  • Services
    • Legal Compliance and Risk Mitigation
    • Representation – Litigation Defense
    • Safety & Health (including COVID-19) Services
    • Remote Work Solutions
    • Technology and the Workplace
    • EEO/Harassment and Discrimination Prevention
    • Pre-Hire, Background Checks and Hiring
    • Wage & Hour
    • Employee Relations
    • Managing Leaves of Absence
    • Employee Benefits
    • Contracts and Agreements
    • Labor Relations/CBA/Union/NLRA
    • Workplace Investigations
    • Training
  • Team
    • Sima Ali, Esq.
    • Karen Lynch, Esq.
    • Kerri Beatty, Esq.
    • Andrea Moss, Esq.
    • Mary McCarthy
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Connect

States Seek Restrictions for Noncompete Agreements

  • By Kerri Beatty
hrtelligence

Powered by HRtelligence.com

Submitted by Ali Law Group PC on July 5, 2016

Nearly one fifth of the nation’s work force are subject to mobility-restricting noncompete agreements, however, several states are now looking to free workers from these agreements.

On June 29, 2016, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted unanimously 150-0 to pass a bill on noncompete reform. The bill would require companies to explain noncompete agreements clearly and limit them to 12 months. It would also prohibit noncompetes for certain categories of employees including hourly workers, summer interns, college students and employees under 18. Most notably, it would require companies to pay former employees 50 percent of their salary for the duration of the noncompete’s enforcement period, unless another mutually-agreed upon consideration is reached.

Other states have also taken steps to restrict noncompete agreements. Oregon and Utah have limited the duration of noncompete clauses, while Hawaii and New Mexico recently banned noncompete agreements for technology and health care workers, respectively. At the federal level, the Treasury Department issued a report this year criticizing the excessive use of noncompetes and the White House published a report in May which concluded that noncompetes “impose substantial costs on workers, consumers and the economy more generally.” Limiting non-compete arrangements at the state and federal level will give workers more freedom and companies less control, promoting entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Read more at: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2016/06/29/mass-house-of-representatives-v…

  • email
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • google+
  • pinterest
PrevPreviousEEOC Settles Background Check Litigation with BMW
NextCourt Bans the Use of Forced Arbitration Clauses in Employment ContractsNext

11 Prospect Street, Suite 1A, Huntington, NY 11743
(631) 423-3440

Linkedin

©2025 Ali Law Group. All Rights Reserved.
This material is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.