Posts

Massachusetts: Court Provides Guidance on Choice of Law and Forum Selection Clauses in Restrictive Covenants

APPLIES TO

All Employers with non-MA Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 7, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed an employee’s confidentiality, non-solicitation, and non-compete agreement providing for the application of Massachusetts law, which is where the employer was headquartered, as well as a forum selection clause for Massachusetts. The employee left the employer to work for a competitor and allegedly violated the agreement. The employer filed suit for breach of the employee’s agreement in Massachusetts.

However, the employee at issue interviewed, hired, and worked only in California. Moreover, California prohibits non-compete agreements. The Court stated that choice of law provisions are only enforced in Massachusetts if they do not violate public policy. Under the circumstances, California substantive law applied over Massachusetts choice of law principles because of California’s policy favoring open competition and employee mobility. Additionally, the case was more properly heard in California because “everything relevant to [the] case happened in California,” “all relevant witnesses [were] located in California,” and the courts of California had an interest in seeing that California law was correctly applied to the dispute.

Employers who have out-of-state employees will need to be cautious about the restrictive covenants and choice of law provisions they have them sign.

Action Items

  1. Have restrictive covenants reviewed to ensure that the law governing the agreement aligns with where the employee is working.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

Wisconsin: Employee Non-Solicitation Agreements Must Be “Reasonable”

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 19, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wisconsin, post-employment restrictive covenants must be “reasonable” to be enforced. In Manitowoc Company, Inc. v. Lanning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently stated that post-employment non-solicitation agreements must meet the same standard as other post-employment restrictive covenants (e.g., non-competition and non-disclosure agreements). Specifically, a “reasonable” non-solicitation agreement must be necessary for the protection of the employer, provide reasonable time and territorial limits, and not be oppressive to the employee or contrary to public policy.

Minnesota: Non-Compete Agreements Require Additional Consideration Other than Continued Employment

APPLIES TO

All Employers of MN Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 6, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On October 6, 2017, a Minnesota federal district court emphasized the importance of appropriately presenting restrictive covenants.  Minnesota employers who require employees to sign restrictive covenants, such as a non-compete agreement, have certain obligations to the timing and type of consideration that must be offered with the restrictive covenant.  Specifically, new applicants must be provided the non-compete agreement before accepting the offer of employment, and currently-employed individuals must be provided something of value beyond continued employment as consideration.