Lawrence H. Pockers – Page 2 – Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law

January 28, 2022June 22, 2023 by Duane Morris

Colorado Enacts Legislation Authorizing Potential Criminal Liability for Employers that Violate State Noncompetition Statute

A new Colorado law, effective March 1, 2022, will make violations of the state’s noncompetition statute a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by 120 days in jail, a fine up to $750, or both.

Colorado’s noncompetition statute, C.R.S. § 8-2-113, prohibits the use of “force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place he sees fit.” Covenants not to compete restricting the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer are void under the statute unless they satisfy certain exceptions.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

August 10, 2021June 22, 2023 by Duane Morris

Oregon and Nevada Amend Noncompete Statutes and Bolster Employee Protections

Oregon and Nevada recently amended their noncompete statutes to further limit the circumstances under which employers may enforce noncompetition covenants against ex-employees.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

May 3, 2021June 22, 2023 by Duane Morris

Pennsylvania’s High Court Finds Businesses’ No-Hire Provision “Unreasonably in Restraint of Trade and Therefore Unenforceable”

In its April 29, 2021, opinion, Pittsburgh Logistics Systems v. Beemac Trucking,―A.3d―, No. 31 WAP 2019, 2021 WL 1676399 (Pa. Apr. 29, 2021), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania weighed in on whether no-hire, or “no-poach,” provisions that are ancillary to a services contract between business entities are enforceable under Pennsylvania law. The court declined to hold such provisions per se unenforceable. Its answer for the clause at issue, however, was a resounding “no.” Now, more than ever, it is critical for Pennsylvania companies and employers to consult with legal counsel to evaluate any no-poach provisions in commercial and employment agreements to increase the chances that these provisions will be upheld.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

June 3, 2019 by Duane Morris

New Legislation in Washington and Oregon Limits the Enforceability of Noncompete Agreements

New legislation enacted in May 2019 will make noncompetes harder to enforce in Washington state and Oregon.

Washington State Enacts Sweeping Noncompete Legislation

On May 8, 2019, Washington became the latest state to enact comprehensive noncompete legislation. Under the Act Relating to Restraints, Including Noncompetition Covenants, on Persons Engaging in Lawful Professions, Trades or Businesses, noncompetition covenants will be void and unenforceable unless they meet a number of specific requirements. Although the act does not take effect until January 1, 2020, it impacts certain agreements signed and certain claims that arise before the effective date, as explained further below.

The act provides that noncompetition covenants are only enforceable against employees and independent contractors whose annual earnings exceed $100,000 and $250,000, respectively. These amounts will be adjusted annually, on September 30 of each year, to account for inflation…

Oregon Legislation Imposes Additional Notice Requirements on Employers

Modifications to Oregon’s existing Noncompetition Law, ORS 653.295, were signed into law on May 14, 2019, introducing additional restrictions on employers’ already curtailed ability to enforce noncompetition covenants, except with respect to certain “excluded employees” described in ORS 653.010(3). Under the newly amended legislation, employers will not only be required to meet preemployment notice requirements under the Noncompetition Law, they must now give employees postemployment notice of their noncompete obligations…

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

May 13, 2019 by Duane Morris

Third Circuit Reverses N.J. Court Decisions on Restrictive Covenant Agreement’s Enforceability

On April 26, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded two district court decisions in which the courts had held that a restrictive covenant agreement—offered only to the company’s highest-performing sales employees in exchange for eligibility to participate in a stock-option award program—was unenforceable per se under New Jersey law. ADP, LLC v. Rafferty, 18-1796, 2019 WL 1868701 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2019).

ADP utilized two separate layers of agreements containing postemployment restrictive covenants: (1) sales representation agreements (SRAs) and nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) signed by all employees at the time of hire and as a condition of employment; and (2) restrictive covenant agreements (RCAs) with certain high-performing employees as a condition of those employees’ eligibility to participate in the company’s stock-option award program. The RCAs contained more restrictive provisions than the SRAs and NDAs.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

February 1, 2018 by Lawrence H. Pockers

2018 Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Law Preview

Lawrence H. Pockers

Read Lawrence's bio.

With 2018 well underway, it’s time to look ahead to what are likely to be some of the key issues/stories relating to non-competition agreements and trade secrets this year:

Continued Push in State Legislatures for Non-Compete Reform

Last year saw the enactment of a number of state laws relating to non-competition agreements. See, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code § 925 (setting conditions on requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California to sign agreements containing a mandatory non-California choice of law clause or a mandatory forum selection clause outside of California); 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 90/1 through 90/10 (prohibiting covenants not to compete between Illinois employers and their low-wage employees, i.e., those who earn no more than “the greater of (1) the hourly rate equal to the minimum wage required by the applicable federal, State, or local minimum wage law or (2) $13.00 per hour.”); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § AB 276, § 1 (setting forth new standard for Nevada courts to analyze non-competition agreements and reversing Nevada Supreme Court’s 2016 Golden Road decision to restore Nevada to a “blue pencil” state).

This year is likely to see a continued push in state legislatures for the enactment of laws relating to non-competition agreements. Legislators in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Vermont have all recently introduced bills that would limit enforcement of non-competition agreements. Pennsylvania’s bill (House Bill No. 1938), if enacted, would ban covenants not to compete entered into after the effective date of the legislation, except those involving the sale of a business or the dissolution or disassociation of a partnership or a limited liability company. If enacted, the bill would also entitle an employee who prevails in a suit against an employer related to the enforcement of a covenant not to compete to recover attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, and would require any dispute arising out of or related to a covenant not to compete involving a Pennsylvania resident to be exclusively decided by a Pennsylvania state court applying Pennsylvania law. Continue reading “2018 Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Law Preview”

May 6, 2016May 6, 2016 by Duane Morris

Lawrence Pockers Moderated a Panel at the DRI Business Litigation Seminar

Lawrence H. Pockers, co-chair of Duane Morris’ Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Practice Group, moderated a panel discussion at the DRI Business Litigation Seminar in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 5, 2016.

The panel was titled “Restrictive Covenants Enforcement Realities Around the Country: The In-House Perspective on Chasing the Departed,” and the panelists were Kelly Grace Huller, Globus Medical Inc.; Jennifer A. McGlinn, Ricoh Americas Corp.; and Stacey N. Schmidt, Fidelity Investments.

May 2, 2016 by Lawrence H. Pockers

Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Necessitates Changes to Form Employment Agreements

By Lawrence H. Pockers, Co-Chair, Duane Morris Non-Compete and Trade Secrets practice

Following passage by the House of Representatives on April 27, 2016, President Obama is expected to sign the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 into law any day. Once signed into law, the Defend Trade Secrets Act will amend Chapter 90, Title 18 of the United State Code (The Economic Espionage Act of 1996) to create a federal, private cause of action for trade secret misappropriation where “the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The Defend Trade Secrets Act will apply with respect to any misappropriation of a trade secret “for which any act [of misappropriation] occurs on or after the date of the enactment of the Act.” Much of the early commentary surrounding the Defend Trade Secrets Act has focused on the fact that employers will now be able to rely on federal law instead of navigating the sometimes subtle differences in state laws concerning claims for trade secret misappropriation, and the provisions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act which permit the civil seizure “of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.”

One aspect of the Defend Trade Secrets Act that has received little attention, but that should be top of mind for employers, is a provision buried at the end of the Act that will necessitate a change in the form of employment agreements many employers use in order to maintain maximum leverage over employees and ex-employees who misappropriate trade secrets. More specifically, Section 7 – the very last section – of the Act, amends the Economic Espionage Act to create immunity from liability where an individual (for example, an employee or ex-employee) confidentially discloses a trade secret to a government official, an attorney or in a court filing. This Section of the Act requires that “[a]n employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.” An employer that fails to comply may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorneys’ fees in an action under the Act unless the employee was provided with this form of notice.

Continue reading “Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Necessitates Changes to Form Employment Agreements”

December 7, 2015December 8, 2015 by Lawrence H. Pockers

New Sixth Circuit Decision on Uniform Trade Secrets Act Underscores Importance of Proving Lost Profits In Trade Secrets Cases

Lawrence H. Pockers and Gregory S. Bombard

Trade secret plaintiffs have a bevy of remedies available. On the monetary remedies side, plaintiffs often choose to measure their damages based on the profits realized by their competitor. Focusing on the defendant’s wrongfully-gained profits is in many cases easier than proving that the plaintiff’s profits diminished as a result of the theft. Plaintiffs are often also skittish about revealing the amount of their own losses to their competitors.

But a new case from the Sixth Circuit — Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc., No. 14-3563, 2015 WL 6685380, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2015) — demonstrates why proving the plaintiff’s “actual loss” at trial is an important part of protecting a plaintiff’s business from further harm. Continue reading “New Sixth Circuit Decision on Uniform Trade Secrets Act Underscores Importance of Proving Lost Profits In Trade Secrets Cases”

November 23, 2015December 8, 2015 by Lawrence H. Pockers

“Intent to be Legally Bound” Insufficient Consideration for Non-Compete in Pennsylvania

Lawrence H. Pockers

Read Lawrence's bio.

On November 18, 2015, a 4-1 majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Justice Eakin, dissenting) held in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., No. 142 MAP 2014, that a post-employment covenant not to compete entered into by an employee after the start of his employment was void for lack of consideration, despite the fact that the agreement containing the non-competition covenant included language that the parties “intend to be legally bound.” In so doing, the Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s May 13, 2014 order which, in turn, had affirmed the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff/employee. Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 99 A.3d 928 (Pa. Super. 2014). Continue reading