With the Federal Trade Commission’s Final Rule that would ban noncompetes nationwide set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, assuming pending litigation doesn’t cause any delays, employers should begin planning now to address any potential compliance concerns. Legal and human resources teams will need to consider the impact of the Final Rule on current noncompete agreements, requirements for providing notice to impacted employees under the rule, and strategies for implementing pending and future agreements if the rule is upheld.
During this recent webinar, McDermott Partners Andrew Liazos, Brian Mead and Heidi Steele discussed what employers should consider in the evolving landscape of noncompete agreements. With the Federal Trade Commission’s Final Rule that would ban noncompetes nationwide set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, assuming pending litigation doesn’t cause any delays, employers will want to develop a game plan to navigate these issues both in the short and long term.
The state of Washington has placed additional restrictions on the use of noncompetition agreements. Readers may be familiar with the Federal Trade Commission’s latest noncompete rule, which goes into effect on September 4, 2024. While that federal regulation is currently being challenged in court, Washington’s rule has already gone into effect.
On April 23, 2024, in a move that will have significant ramifications for employment contracts and intellectual property (IP) rights, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a rule banning all future noncompete agreements nationwide with limited exceptions. The rule marks a pivotal moment for trade secret protection and enforcement strategies as it promises to reshape the relationship between employers and employees and impact safeguards for proprietary information.
Noncompete agreements have long been used to temporarily restrict employees from working for a competitor or starting a competing business after leaving an employer. These agreements are often used to protect a company’s IP by prohibiting employees from taking and/or disclosing proprietary information, such as customer lists, to competitors.
The 2016 proposed regulations significantly expanded 457(f) plan sponsors’ ability to permit elective deferrals, use noncompetition agreements and make larger severance payments than otherwise permitted under 409A without immediate taxation to participants. In a recent presentation, Ruth Wimer, Mary Samsa and Joseph Urwitz discuss the surprising opportunities with respect to tax-exempt and governmental entities’ “ineligible nonqualified deferred compensation” arrangements in 2016 regulations. They also address the rules and limitations of the short-term deferral exception, the interaction of the 2016 regulations with existing regulations, other types of arrangements potentially affected, as well as best practices for employers.
Subscribe
