Covenants not to compete (Non-Compete) have become increasingly common in recent years. In fact, some argue that they have become too common, adversely affecting the economy and creating unnecessary problems for both employers and employees.
The debate over a possible ban of non-compete agreements in Massachusetts has flared up again in the Legislature. Lawmakers are considering whether current law strikes a fair balance between protecting employers' trade secrets and ensuring that employees have reasonable opportunities to change jobs, start new companies and innovate.
When drafting an employment contract, an operating agreement for a Limited Liability Company (LCC) or any other business agreements, an important component of these instruments should be a noncompete clause.
One of the threads we've been following in this blog is the status of noncompete agreements in Massachusetts.
This is a follow-up to piece we did last month on noncompete agreements.
Most people's work lives take place in a relentlessly competitive marketplace marked by constant technological change.
A recent decision by the Appeals Court in Massachusetts highlights the often convoluted issue of non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
When employees sign a non-compete agreement with their employers as a condition of their employment or separation, it is imperative that they follow it to the letter of the law. Some of our readers in Massachusetts may be thinking about getting back into the job market after taking a requisite break from their industry of choice, but heed this lesson in employment contracts and clauses that two bankers learned the hard way.