Royal

Recognizable Harm from Violated Non-Competes

May 8, 2023

An employee in Massachusetts, under non-competition and non-disclosure agreements with their employer, allegedly downloaded and took copies of proprietary, confidential, and highly sensitive technical information from their employer. The employee then took this information and began working for a direct competitor.


The employer sued the employee for breach of contract, conversion of property, violating the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (G.L.c. 93, §§42-42G), and committing unfair trade practices that violate the business-to-business section of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (G.L.c. 93A, §11). 


Despite the employee’s argument that the agreements are unenforceable under the Massachusetts Non-Competition Act (G.L.c. 149, §24L), the complaint was not dismissed. The court held that the statute did not apply here, because the employee signed their non-competition agreement before the new statute took effect. The employee executed this contract, and by its terms, it became effective on September 28, 2018. The Legislature’s limited application of §24L to agreements entered after October 1, 2018, three days after the employee signed the non-competition agreement. 


However, the court held that the employer’s failure and apparent inability to allege that the employee had made any use of its proprietary information means that the employer had failed to state a viable claim under G.L.c. 93A, §11. Therefore, the court held in favor of the employee due to employer’s failure to prove cognizable harm or injury.


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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: