Royal

Are the House and Senate Trying to Ban Your Noncompete Agreements?

March 1, 2023

The House and Senate have recently introduced a bill that would ban noncompete agreements.


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced a proposal, which would eliminate noncompete agreements, except in limited situations.


The proposed Workforce Mobility Act of 2023, by the House and Senate, would disallow individuals and businesses entering, enforcing, or attempting to enforce noncompete agreements. The FTC’s proposal would apply to past, present, and future noncompete agreements, while the Workforce Mobility Act would only apply to those agreements entered after the bill is enacted.

The proposed bill provides three limited exceptions in which noncompete agreements would still be valid:

  • When the sale of goodwill or ownership interests in a business takes place, the buyer could include a noncompete provision in the contract to bar the seller from running a similar business in the same geographic area.
  • A buyer or seller of goodwill or ownership interests in a business could enter into a severance agreement with senior executives including a noncompete provision that applies for up to one year, only in the geographic region where the company previously operated. Such an agreement must provide for severance payments of at least one year’s salary or compensation if employment is terminated.
  • Noncompete provisions would be allowed for the purpose of stopping departing partners from running similar businesses in the same geographic area if the partnership is dissolved.


This bill would create a private form of action for the individuals against employers for violations of the bill. Recovery would encompass actual damages and attorney fees.


Moreover, state attorneys general could in fact bring claims against the employers as well for violations of the proposed bill.


This is an update from our January 11, 2023 post, titled The FTC Proposes Rule to Ban Noncompete Clauses for all US Workers. Click here to read that post!


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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways 1. Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. 2. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. 3. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process . If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: