Each of the states within the Eleventh Circuit governs the use of restrictive covenants through statutes. Generally, both Florida and Alabama permit the use of restrictive covenants where the restrictive covenant is “reasonably necessary” to protect a legitimate business interest, but the legitimate business interest requirement is applied differently in both jurisdictions. Alabama law prohibits
Restrictive Covenants in the Second Circuit
Unlike in the Ninth Circuit, in states comprising the Second Circuit, common law generally governs the use of restrictive covenants. Still, many of the specific factors for analysis in these states will be familiar, given the widely accepted “reasonability” standard for adjudicating the propriety of such agreements. Both the Vermont and N.Y. State Legislatures have
California’s Restrictive Covenant Statute an Outlier in the Ninth Circuit?
We recently shared a California federal court decision in Barker v. Insight Global, LLC, et al. that relied on Section 16600 of California’s Business and Professional Code to hold that, in California, non-solicitation provisions in employee agreements are presumptively invalid. The California statute governing restrictive covenants provides that “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every
Legislation May Roll Back Use of Non-Compete Agreements
Legislation recently introduced in the United States Senate to protect low-wage workers could roll back the use of non-compete agreements, a common tool companies use to protect their trade secrets.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “Freedom to Compete Act,” which aims to protect low-wage and entry-level employees from non-compete agreements, which generally