Recognizable Harm from Violated Non-Competes

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.