Non-competition Agreements - What Are Employers Really Getting with These Documents?

March 19, 2021
employee sign a non-competition agreement

Everyone is aware of the honeymoon phase of the employment relationship — that time period when the employee begins work and both parties are filled with high expectations for the relationship.


Possibly, prior to beginning the relationship, an employer has the employee sign a non-competition agreement as a sort of prenuptial agreement, hoping to never have to use it. However, fast-forward a few years, the employment relationship goes sour, and the employee leaves the company. Not only does the employee leave the company, but they also begin soliciting clients, or maybe even fellow employees, to join them at their new place of employment.


As employers are aware, Massachusetts enacted the Noncompetition Agreement Act in 2018. Prior to the act, there was little restriction on the contents of a non-competition agreement other than what terms would be enforced by a court in the event of a dispute. That changed with the provisions of the act. Now, in the scenario above, if the employer sought to enforce the non-competition agreement, it would need to pay the former employee not to work during the competition period.

This is because the act mandates that, to be enforceable, a non-competition agreement must contain a ‘garden-leave clause,’ defined as 50% of the employee’s highest annualized salary within the two years preceding termination.


“While the Noncompetition Agreement Act requires employers to pay former employees not to work, there may be other options available to employers.”


Employers therefore must answer the question: what do I really want with a non-competition agreement? Is it to stop the former employee from working? Or is the goal to maintain the status of my business? If the goal is to maintain the status of the business, employers may be able to utilize non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements, which can protect the former employer’s interests while also allowing the former employee to work.


Both such agreements are excluded from the definition of ‘non-competition agreement’ by the act, meaning they do not need to include garden-leave clauses.


A non-solicitation agreement does not prohibit a former employee from working for a competitor when the employment relationship ends. Instead, it serves to prohibit the former employee from soliciting clients and other employees of the former employer to join them at their new place of employment. A non-solicitation agreement can therefore be an effective tool in preserving the current status of the business by prohibiting a former employee from taking clients and other employees with them to their new place of employment.


A non-disclosure agreement also does not prohibit a former employee from working for a competitor when the employment relationship ends. Nor does it prohibit the former employee from soliciting clients and other employees from joining them at their new place of employment. Instead, it serves to prohibit the former employee from disclosing any confidential information from the former employer. The confidential information protected could be a trade secret or other highly sensitive material.


In short, while the Noncompetition Agreement Act requires employers to pay former employees not to work, there may be other options available to employers. It is therefore wise to consult with employment counsel to review your potential options to protect your business interests after the employment relationship has ended.


Timothy M. Netkovick, Esq. is a litigation attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council; (413) 586-2288; tnetkovick@theroyallawfirm.com


This article was published in BusinessWest! Click here to visit their website.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.