Executive Order on Non-Compete Agreements

July 28, 2021
Executive Order on Non-Compete Agreements

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order aimed at promoting a more competitive marketplace for America workers, businesses, and consumers. In order to promote workers’ ability to switch jobs and negotiate higher wages, the Order encourages the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in employment contracts. If the FTC does propose a ban on non-competes, there certainly would be much debate about whether the FTC has the authority to implement such a ban and whether the ban would in fact “promote competition in the American economy.


Currently non-compete agreements are regulated by states, which diverge on whether and to what extent they enforce non-compete agreements. In 2018, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Noncompetition Agreement Act limiting the use of non-compete agreements by providing strict criteria that the agreement must meet in order to be enforceable. The law applies to contracts between employers and independent contractors entered into after October 1, 2018.


The law provides that to be enforceable, a non-compete agreement:


  • must be no broader than necessary to protect employers’ legitimate business interests, which include employers’ trade secrets, employers’ confidential information, or employers’ goodwill with customers;
  • cannot last for more than one year after the end of employment; and
  • must be reasonable with respect to geographic area and activities restricted.


The law also includes a provision requiring non-compete agreements to contain a garden leave clause or some other form of mutually agreed to consideration specified in the agreement. A garden leave clause would require employers to pay employees 50% of their highest salary during the last 2 years, while the non-compete agreement was in effect.


Under the law, non-compete agreements cannot be enforced against (1) non-exempt employees; 2) employees who are terminated without cause or laid off; (3) undergraduate or graduate students engaged in an internship or other short-term employment; and (4) employees aged 18 or younger. Other Massachusetts laws also ban non-compete agreements for physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, broadcasters, and lawyers.


For questions about non-competes or any other employment law matter, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at (413) 586-2288.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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.

Royal was Proud to Sponsor the 2025 BusinessWest Difference Makers Event!

April 10, 2025
Though the Difference Makers event has come to a close, let's continue to shine a light on the transformative power of giving back to our community! Every year, The Royal Law Firm is humbled to be a part of this incredible event that spotlights the brightest stars in our community. We can't wait to celebrate the 2026 Difference Makers and the boundless impact they'll have!