FTC Proposes Rule to Ban Non-Compete Agreements
ABSTRACT: In an area of law formerly left to the states, on January 5th, the Federal Trade Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to implement a nationwide retroactive ban on non-compete agreements, with limited exceptions. The proposed rule would supersede state laws that are less protective of employees.
Who does the proposed FTC rule apply to?
The rule would cover non-compete clauses with any worker, paid or unpaid, including employees, independent contractors, interns, externs, volunteers, apprentices, or sole proprietors. Under the rule, “employer” is broadly defined as “any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, including any person acting under color or authority of state law.”
How does the proposed rule define a non-compete clause?
Under the rule, a “non-compete clause” is defined as “a contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.”
The FTC advises that non-disclosure agreements that are too broad could be viewed as unlawful de facto non-compete clauses. It is likely the same holds true for overly broad non-solicitation agreements. Further, the proposed rule warns that if an employer requires employees to repay in-house or third-party training costs if the worker’s employment ends within a specific time-period, this may also qualify as an unlawful non-compete clause, if the required payment is not reasonably related to the costs the employer incurred in training the worker.
How does the rule impact non-compete agreements already in effect?
The proposed rule requires employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses no later than the rule’s compliance deadline of 180 days after the final rule is published. Employers must provide formal written notice of the rescission to both current and former employees (unless the employee’s contact information is not readily available) that are bound by non-compete clauses. The rescission notice must be provided within 45 days of rescinding the non-compete clause.
When does the rule take effect?
Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to submit comments. At that time, the FTC may make changes before submitting a final rule or request further public comment. Once the final rule is published in the Federal Register, employers will have a 180-day grace period to become complaint with the final rule’s requirements.
The FTC is specifically seeking comments from the public as to whether senior executives should be exempt or subjected to a rebuttable presumption; whether low and high wage earners should be treated differently; and whether franchisees should be covered.
Exemptions?
Very limited. The rule would not apply to a non-compete agreement between a seller and the buyer of a business, where the affected party restricted is an owner, member or partner holding at least 25% ownership interest in the business.
Pre-emption?
The proposed rule supersedes all state laws, regulations, orders, and the like that are not consistent with the rule’s requirements. State laws, however, may provide greater protections for employees against non-competes.
Key Considerations
This is the perfect time for businesses to take an accounting of and review existing and proposed non-compete agreements. Companies should also review non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and other policies requiring employees to reimburse employers for training expenses to evaluate whether these policies might be construed as de facto non-compete clauses if ultimately challenged. Otherwise, companies should continue to monitor the potential implementation of the FTC’s proposed rule, consider submitting a public comment (either individually or through industry associations), and be on the lookout for any modifications made by the FTC should a final rule be published, which will then trigger the 180-day compliance deadline.

Employers Subject to More Lenient Standard for FLSA Exemptions from Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Provisions ...

Requirements of the New Illinois Pay Transparency Amendment ...
About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.