참고자료 소개 블로그 링크 Key Trends from a Summer of Non-compete Reform

 

 

Prohibition Against Non-Competes for Low-Wage Workers

The most common area of reform has been the ban against employers entering into non-compete agreements with “low-wage” employees. Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all now prohibit employers from entering non-compete agreements with “low-wage” employees, though the definition of “low wage” varies by state.

 

Maine’s L.D. 733 sets forth the broadest definition of “low-wage” setting the threshold hold at employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level ($49,960 in 2019).

 

Rhode Island and Maryland set their compensation threshold several thousand dollars lower, at employees earning at or below 250% of the federal poverty level ($31,225 in 2019)and employees earning at or below $31,200 per year or $15perhour, respectively.

 

Similar to Rhode Island and Maryland, New Hampshire’s S.B. 197 defines “low-wage” employees as those earning an hourly rate less than or equal to 200% of the federal minimum wage(i.e., $14.50per hour or $30,160 annually).

 

Enhanced Notice Requirements

Another common feature among the myriad of recently enacted non-compete laws is the imposition of new notice requirements before a non-compete restriction can be enforced against an employee.

 

For example, Maine’s L.D. 733 requires employers seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement to (a) disclose the terms of the non-compete agreement prior to an offer of employment, and (b) provide a copy of the non-compete agreement at least three (3) business days before the employee is required to sign the agreement. Similarly, New Hampshire’s S.B. 197 mandates that employers provide a copy of the non-compete agreement to any potential employee before the employee accepts an offer of employment. A non-compete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee prior to his or her acceptance of employment is unenforceable under the new New Hampshire law.

 

KASAN_전직금지, 경업금지 약정의 효력 관련 미국의 최근 입법 동향.pdf
다운로드

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2021. 9. 13. 15:00
Trackback 0 : Comment 0

댓글을 달아 주세요


 

Limitation on Employment Injunctions Under DTSA § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(1)(I)

(1) Remedies. In a civil action brought under this subsection with respect to the misappropriation of a trade secret, a court may—

(A) grant an injunction (i) to prevent any actual or threatened misappropriation described in paragraph (1) on such terms as the court deems reasonable, provided the order does not (I) prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship, and that conditions placed on such employment shall be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows; or (II) otherwise conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business.

 

An injunction under the DTSA cannot “prevent” a person from taking new employment and must be based on evidence of "threatened" misappropriation. If an injunction limits someone’s new employment, this requires “evidence of threatened misappropriation,” not merely evidence that the employee “knows” trade secrets.  This means a court cannot say to a departing employee "you cannot ever work at Company X, under any circumstances." But a court can place restrictions on employment, like ordering the employee to wait a few months until a particular deal is over or prohibit the employee from working on a specific project, but only so long as the plaintiff brings forward evidence of a "threat" that the employee will use or disclose the trade secrets. The naked argument that the employee knows and will "inevitably" use or disclose the information in a new job should not be enough.

 

Much Ado About § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(1)(I) - "many of these 'inevitable disclosure' injunctions were entered only after a showing that the employee has engaged in “bad acts” found to threaten misappropriation of trade secrets."

 

첨부: 참고자료 미국 석사논문

 

KASAN_종업원의 경쟁업체 전직으로 영업비밀의 Inevitable Disclosure 사용자의 영업비밀 보호 위한 전직금지청구 vs 근로자의 전직의 자유, 직업선택권의 충돌 - 미국 영업비밀보호법 실무 Injunctio.pdf
다운로드
Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine.pdf
다운로드

 

[질문 또는 상담신청 입력하기]

 

 

작성일시 : 2021. 9. 7. 17:00
Trackback 0 : Comment 0

댓글을 달아 주세요