Non-compete clause
A non-compete clause is a provision in employment contracts that restricts employees from sharing proprietary information or working for competing companies after leaving their job. Often referred to as non-compete agreements or covenants not to compete, these clauses serve to protect sensitive business information and the company's competitive edge. They typically prohibit two main actions: disclosing confidential information to competitors and seeking employment with competitors for a specified period. While intended to safeguard businesses, non-compete clauses can be contentious and are subject to varying enforcement based on jurisdiction. In some areas, such as California, they hold no legal standing, and as of April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission banned non-compete clauses nationwide.
The legality and acceptance of these clauses vary widely, with courts often requiring that they be reasonable in terms of duration, geographic scope, and necessity for protecting legitimate business interests. Employees may negotiate the terms of these clauses, especially if they possess valuable skills or knowledge, leading to potential financial compensation for agreeing to such restrictions. Overall, while non-compete clauses can benefit employers by safeguarding their interests, they may also deter talent acquisition and retention, creating a complex legal landscape for businesses and employees alike.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Non-compete clause
A non-compete clause is a feature of employment contract law that restricts employees of a specific company from sharing proprietary information about that company, or from working for that company's competitors. These clauses are also known by several other names, including non-compete agreements and covenants not to compete. They typically appear as clauses in larger and more comprehensive employment contracts.
Most non-compete clauses expressly forbid employees from two specific actions. First, signatory parties are legally bound not to divulge sensitive or proprietary information about the company's assets or activities to competitors. Second, they disqualify signatory parties from future employment with competitors if they should ever leave the company with which they have signed a non-compete agreement. These employment restrictions usually come with a specified time horizon, after which the signatory parties are free to pursue employment opportunities with any company they choose.
Due to their restrictive nature, non-compete clauses are somewhat contentious. In the United States, these clauses are often difficult for employers to enforce. In some places, such as California, non-compete clauses have no legal recognition whatsoever. In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission banned non-complete clauses nationwide.
Background
As a specific legal phenomenon, non-compete clauses began to appear in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The 1889 case of Carroll v. Giles, heard in the South Carolina Supreme Court, is one of the earliest legal precedents to establish the modern concept of the non-compete clause. In the case, the court ruled that such contracts cannot place general restrictions on the trade of goods or labor, but partial restraints may be valid, depending on the circumstances. The court then offered a scope for those partial restraints, limiting the geographic region in which such restrictions could be enforced and emphasizing the need to consider the rights of both parties, as well as the well-being of the public. While the South Carolina Supreme Court did not specifically mention time limitations in its ruling, its judgment in the Carroll v. Giles case otherwise essentially set the benchmark for non-compete clauses as they are currently used.
Non-compete clauses arose from the near universal truth that practically every business is subject to some form of competition, and it is necessary for companies of all sizes to attempt to minimize the impact of competitor activity. From an employer's perspective, it is particularly important to do so if key employees have access to trade secrets or other types of specialized, confidential, or proprietary information. Without legal protection in place, it would theoretically be possible for such an employee to simply take that information to a competitor in exchange for financial compensation or other benefits. Similarly, some businesses are dependent upon certain employees, who occupy crucial roles within the organizational hierarchy. Losing those employees to competitors could undermine the company's ability to retain its clients, customers, competitive advantage, or reputation.
To an employer, the value of a non-compete clause extends beyond preventing sensitive or proprietary information from falling into the hands of competitors or deterring employees from leaving to take similar roles with competitors. They also protect the investment a business has made in its employees, and some non-compete clauses go as far as to state that the employee must repay the company for some or all of its costs if the employee leaves the company a short time after completing his or her training period.
Overview
Jurisdictions that recognize and enforce non-compete clauses generally require that they be as permissive as possible by keeping the restrictions placed on signatory parties to an absolute minimum. If the court's opinion is that the non-compete clause is unnecessarily punitive or restrictive, it may invalidate the clause altogether, or apply its own limitations to remove the excessive measures.
As such, courts usually look for three features when evaluating non-compete clauses. First, the clause must offer some form of consideration to the employee or signatory party at the time it is signed. In some cases, this consideration may be the employment opportunity itself, but in other cases, the company may offer the signatory party a bonus or some other form of compensation in exchange for agreeing to the non-compete clause. Second, the clause must address a legitimate concern or protect a legitimate commercial interest of the company. If this legitimacy cannot be demonstrated, courts are more likely to rule that the clause is not valid. Finally, they must be limited in duration, geographic range, and scope, covering only essential elements of the company's operations.
While non-compete clauses can protect a company's critical assets and key human resources, they also carry some risks and drawbacks. Employees tend to take a negative view of non-compete clauses, and companies that insist on including them in their employment contracts may hinder their own ability to attract or retain top talent. Unless they are carefully worded and strictly limited in scope, courts may also elect not to enforce non-compete clauses, even in cases where a former employee is in clear violation of the agreed upon terms and conditions.
Employees, especially high-level employees with valuable skills or privileged knowledge of a company's operations, may be able to negotiate more favorable terms with regard to the inclusion of a non-compete clause in an employment contract. For example, the employee may insist upon receiving financial compensation in exchange for agreeing to the non-compete clause for a specified period. The time duration, geographic limitations, and definition of competition can also be similarly negotiated if the employee has enough leverage to do so.
Court attitudes toward non-compete agreements show significant variation from one jurisdiction to another, making it doubly necessary for businesses to perform thorough research with regard to local laws when designing non-compete clauses. In the United States, non-compete clauses were not covered under federal law, unless the clause contained discriminatory language or provisions. Thus, using non-compete clauses to cover business operations that extend between states, nationwide, or internationally could be very difficult. In such cases, businesses addressed this inherent problem by creating unique non-compete clauses for each employee rather than requiring all employees to sign off on a single, standardized clause.
In April 2024, however, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule that banned non-compete clauses nationwide. Almost immediately, a number of business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, challenged the ban.
Bibliography
"California Law: Noncompete Agreement Ban Takes Effect." Purdue Global Law School, 11 Oct. 2024, www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/california-noncompete-agreement-ban. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Emanuel, Steven. Contracts. Aspen Publishers Online, pp. 122–125.
"FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes." Federal Trade Commission, 23 Apr. 2024, www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Hasselback, Drew. "Legal Tender: Non-Compete Clauses Have Their Limits." Financial Post, 20 Oct. 2014, business.financialpost.com/entrepreneur/legal-tender-non-compete-clauses-have-their-limits. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Karlin, Rick. “Federal Ruling Bans Non-Compete Clauses for Most Workers but Rule Is Challenged in Court.” Times Union (Albany, NY), 28 Apr. 2024. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=p3h&AN=2W6300607469&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Lagesse, Pascale and Mariann Norborn, editors. Restrictive Covenants in Employment Contracts and Other Mechanisms for Protection of Corporate Confidential Information. Kluwer Law International, 2006.
Malsberger, Brian M., et al. Covenants Not to Compete: A State-by-State Survey. Bloomberg BNA Library, 2015.
Miller, Bridget. "Pros and Cons of Noncompete Agreements." HR Daily Advisor, 26 Aug. 2015, hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2014/04/30/pros-and-cons-of-noncompete-agreements/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Smith, Anne Mollegan, et al. "Caveats Before Signing a Noncompete." Investopedia, 30 May 2024, www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/070114/caution-noncompete-contract.asp. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Straz, Matt. "Do You Really Need a Non-Compete Clause?" Entrepreneur, 1 Aug. 2016, www.entrepreneur.com/article/279812. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Wiessner, Daniel. "US Judge Pauses Chamber's Legal Challenge to FTC Noncompete Ban." Reuters, 3 May 2024, www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-pauses-chambers-legal-challenge-ftc-noncompete-ban-2024-05-03/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.