New agreements made by current employers: when an employer asks a current worker to sign a non-compete clause, the new contract must also be supported by an appropriate consideration. This legal concept refers to a value exchanged between the parties, but it is not the same as when an employer asks a new employee to sign. The employer and a current worker are already bound by the conditions of a working relationship. There has to be something that goes beyond the current obligations for the new non-competition clause to be implemented, as. B for example, an increase or an increase in benefits. In other words, maintaining employment is not considered sufficient. While employers can continue to benefit from non-competitive agreements for most workers, the law requires a new approach to the development, implementation and implementation of these agreements. This contribution summarizes the new law, identifies the points of action of employers and raises several issues that will come from this reform. A Brief History of Non-Competition in Massachusetts,, April 10, 2014 Break the History of Non-Competition Agreements from 1711-2014 If you are an employee or employer in New Bedford, Worcester, Lowell, Springfield, Pittsfield or Hyannis and have questions about the applicability of competition bans, contact us today. Agreements against competition in franchise agreements, ABA, 2012. The law applies to non-compete prohibitions and defines a „non-compete agreement“ as: a civil action concerning a non-compete clause in Massachusetts must be brought in the county where the worker resides or in Suffolk County if the employer and the workers agree to each other to take legal action.

The law allows courts to rewrite non-competition prohibitions to make them applicable and applicable to the extent necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the employer. However, the amendments are left to the discretion of the Tribunal, so that employers should not rely on a „blue pencil“ provision to save a non-competition clause that would otherwise be inconsistent with public policy. Like other jurisdictions that have attempted to ban non-compete bans with low-wage workers (such as Illinois, New Jersey and New York), Massachusetts law prohibits non-competition bans with workers considered „tax-exempt“ according to FLSA. The law also prohibits non-competition bans with workers who have been dismissed or dismissed without cause. This is a significant departure from the non-competition prohibitions of other states that impose non-competition bans, regardless of the circumstances of a worker`s dismissal. However, in Massachusetts, when an employee is dismissed or dismissed without cause, the non-compete clause is no longer applicable. So what was the „other recital“ that the Tribunal considered sufficient under the new Non-Competition Act? It turns out that it is the same type of boiler platform that has existed for years in these agreements: protected interests: the new law requires that non-competition prohibitions „are not broader than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer.“ Legitimate business interests are the employer`s business secrets, the employer`s confidential information that would otherwise not be considered trade secrets, or the employer`s value. This requirement is generally consistent with the current state of general law. The law also specifies that a non-compete agreement „may be necessary if the legitimate commercial interest cannot be properly protected by another restrictive agreement, including, but not limited to, a non-invitation agreement, a confidentiality agreement or a confidentiality agreement,“ but does not clarify that presumption. After years of debate, Massachusetts`s legislature passed a comprehensive competition reform law late in the evening.

If, as expected, Governor Baker signs the legislation within the next 10 days, it will take effect on October 1, 2018 and will apply to agreements that will be implemented after that date.