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.

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 After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns.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 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. 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. 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: