The New York Attorney General’s Crackdown on Non-Compete Agreements: What It Means for Companies

Key Points

  • To the surprise of many, the New York Attorney General (NYAG) has become active in challenging non-compete agreements entered into between companies and their employees.
  • The NYAG’s initiative adds headwind to companies’ efforts to enforce restrictive covenants.
  • Companies should review their use of non-compete clauses and assess whether changes are advisable in light of these developments.

Background

Recently, the NYAG has turned quite a few heads by entering into a new legal arena: challenging non-compete agreements between companies and their employees.  The NYAG settled two investigations brought pursuant to Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law, which authorizes the NYAG to investigate and redress “unconscionable contractual provisions.”

First, on June 15, 2016, the NYAG announced a settlement with Law360, a prominent legal news outlet, restricting its use of non-compete agreements with members of its editorial staff.  Before the settlement, the publisher required all of its editorial employees to sign agreements preventing them from working for a “direct competitor” for one year after leaving Law360.  Under the settlement agreement, Law360 will no longer include non-compete provisions in its agreements with most editorial staff members, and it will alert former employees who left the publisher in the past year that their non-compete provisions will not be enforced.

Second, on June 22, 2016, the NYAG announced a settlement with Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches (“Jimmy John’s”).  Under the settlement, Jimmy John’s franchisees based in New York will cease requiring Jimmy John’s sandwich makers to sign non-compete provisions in connection with their employment and will void all such agreements currently in effect.  Jimmy John’s also will cease including sample non-compete agreements in the hiring packets that it sends to franchisees, and it will alert franchisees that the NYAG believes that such clauses are unlawful. 

The NYAG’s announcements come at a time when non-compete arrangements are under increasing scrutiny nationwide, following reports by both the U.S. Treasury Department and the White House regarding the anticompetitive nature of such provisions and the degree to which they purportedly “hurt worker welfare, job mobility, business dynamics, and economic growth more generally.”  Several other states have introduced legislation to prohibit non-compete arrangements, and at least one other state attorney general has initiated litigation challenging the use of such provisions.

Takeaway

The NYAG’s newfound interest in non-compete provisions is a significant development.  Many companies require employees to assent to non-compete provisions as a condition of employment, and the prospect of a NYAG investigation into such practices—or, worse, NYAG litigation over such provisions—is disconcerting at best.  While the enforceability of restrictive covenants always has been subject to legal challenge, litigating against a former employee is an entirely different proposition than litigating against the State of New York.  Companies should monitor the NYAG’s actions in this area and take added care in drafting, negotiating and enforcing non-compete provisions.

To date, the NYAG’s efforts have focused on non-compete agreements with lower-level employees, whom the NYAG claimed had “little to no knowledge of any trade secrets or confidential information.”  The investigations of Law360 and Jimmy John’s were led by the NYAG’s Labor Bureau, whose principal focus is the enforcement of laws protecting low-wage workers.  In each case, the NYAG abstained from challenging the use of non-compete provisions in contracts with certain senior personnel who were more likely to have access to confidential information and trade secrets.  At many companies, the use of non-compete provisions is limited to more senior personnel who do have access to confidential information.

Hopefully, the high burden of proof applicable to actions under the Executive Law will deter overreaching by the NYAG’s office.  To prevail in such an action, the NYAG has to prove not only that a particular non-compete provision is unenforceable as a matter of law, but that it is so far out of bounds as to be  “unconscionable.”  So long as the company is reasonable, and has a good-faith basis for the inclusion of a non-compete provision, the NYAG should have a difficult time establishing a viable claim.

It bears noting that, at least to date, the NYAG has challenged only non-compete provisions and has not sought to challenge other restrictive covenants, such as provisions prohibiting the solicitation of a company’s employees or investors.  Many companies rely largely (or even solely) on such non-solicitation provisions to protect their interests.  Absent an expansion of the NYAG’s current initiative, the use of such non-solicitation provisions will remain outside of the NYAG’s focus.

We are available to further discuss these matters, and the potential impact on your company, at your convenience.

Contact Information

Should you have any questions regarding this alert, please feel free to contact:

Richard J. Rabin
rrabin@akingump.com
212.872.1086
New York

Lauren Helen Leyden
lleyden@akingump.com
212.872.8172
New York

R.D. Kohut
rkohut@akingump.com
212.872.7488
New York

Anastasia Marie Kerdock
akerdock@akingump.com
212.872.7432
New York

Desiree E. Busching
dbusching@akingump.com
212.872.1061
New York