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 Wage Act Claims for Unpaid Bonuses Dismissed

March 5, 2025
A recent Massachusetts ruling regarding unpaid bonuses is extremely important for employers in light of the wave of litigation involving the Massachusetts Wage Act. In this case, Plaintiff brought claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for unpaid bonuses under ERISA, alleging that her former employer deprived her of guaranteed bonus payments. This case is of particular interest as it is rare for a court to consider the substantive nature of a case during the dismissal stage. However, in this case, the judge ruled on the substantive nature of the wages Plaintiff claimed, outside of the purview of a typical motion to dismiss decision. The court decided that the compensation of a bonus under ERISA is “discretionary or contingent upon the employee remaining with the company [and] is not considered a wage subject to the wage act” and dismissed the claims of unpaid wages, only allowing the retaliation claims to proceed. The judge found that bonuses did not constitute wages as they are not earned. This decision can help to decrease employers’ concerns about wage claims, particularly those related to bonuses and deferred compensation.  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.
Share by: