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.

Recent Department of Education Investigation has Created More Questions Regarding DEI-Type Protocols for Employers

February 26, 2025
Recent executive orders issued by the executive branch have raised questions for many employers, especially relating to DEI policies. While it was initially interpreted that the executive orders regarding the presence of DEI policies only applied to federal agencies and companies that receive federal funds, a recent investigation by the Department of Education has raised questions about whether privately funded organizations and companies could face prosecution.  In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (as known as MIAA), a program not directly funded by the federal government, is being investigated by the Department of Education for an alleged violation of Title IX in allowing transgender individuals to participate in women’s sports. While MIAA’s policy is loosely related to DEI protocols, this investigation seems to declare that support of DEI-type programs and policies by private companies can be prosecuted akin to this investigation. It is investigations such as these that has led to a movement called “rainbow-hushing,” in which companies drop or quietly rebrand their diversity, equity and inclusion programs to avoid prosecution. While confusion and contradictions between anti-discrimination laws and the new wave of executive orders issued by the executive branch remain abound, it is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under the new executive orders, akin to MIAA. 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.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.
Share by: