Ten Things About American Law(3)Non-Competition Clauses Nationwide Ban: Employees Can Freely Join Competitors Without Restrictions!
On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a historic move to eliminate non-compete agreements nationwide!
Is this the most thrilling news for employees eager to jump to competitor companies or employers looking to recruit top talent?
It seems so!
But wait—there’s more!
Will this nationwide ban truly transform job-hopping and talent wars in the U.S. labor market? Beyond non-competes, what other legal "Swords of Damocles" still hang over employees and employers? What hidden restrictions might still deter bold career moves or aggressive hiring strategies?
Today, Let’s Dive into “Non-Competition Agreements”
[Insert opening sequence here]
10 Things About U.S. Labor Law: Stories of Employers and Employees
1. Nationwide Ban on Non-Competition
Let’s unpack the FTC’s groundbreaking rule. Here are three critical points to know about the nationwide ban on non-compete agreements:
1.1 Effective Date
Though announced on April 23, 2024, the rule officially takes effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register—on September 4, 2024.
1.2 Non-Competition Agreements for senior executives remain valid
After the rule takes effect:
Existing and future non-compete agreements for most employees become unenforceable.
Pre-existing non-competes for senior executives (defined as those earning over $151,164 annually in policy-making roles) remain valid.
Translation: This applies to high-level “C-suite” employees (e.g., CEOs, CFOs) with salaries exceeding the threshold.
1.3 The Rule Faces Legal Challenges
Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, multiple organizations have filed lawsuits against the FTC, accusing it of overstepping its authority. This means the non-compete ban could be delayed or even overturned in court—potentially reviving non-competes in months or years.
2. Non-Competition Were Never That Scary
Here’s the truth: Whether this FTC rule survives or not, non-competes have always been limited in practice.
2.1 California’s Pioneering Role
The nationwide ban on non-competes has little impact on California, which outlawed non-compete clauses way back in 1872.
On January 1, 2024, California doubled down with a new amendment: Non-competes signed in other states are unenforceable in California, even if valid elsewhere.
This aggressive stance explains why California’s economy thrives with innovation and talent mobility—employers and employees here have long operated under freer rules.
2.2 States That Fully Banned Non-Competes
Even before the FTC’s nationwide ban, Colorado and Minnesota had already outlawed non-compete agreements entirely at the state level.
Starting in 2016, several other states joined the movement to restrict non-competes for rank-and-file workers (executives excluded):
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Washington, Virginia, and Maryland passed laws banning non-competes for low- and mid-wage employees.
2.3 Non-Competes in Other States
Even in states that historically allowed non-competes, enforcement was heavily restricted before the FTC’s ban.
Time Limits: Non-competes longer than 12–24 months were often deemed unenforceable. Agreements exceeding 2 years rarely held up.
Scope of Work: Restrictions had to apply to identical industries. Employers couldn’t block ex-employees from working in unrelated fields.
Geographic Reach: Overly broad regions (e.g., banning work within hundreds of miles) were frequently rejected. Courts favored narrowly defined areas tied to the employer’s actual market.
Bottom line: Non-competes were never as scary as they seemed—employers faced high legal hurdles to enforce them.
3. Clauses More Restrictive Than Non-Competition
Even without non-compete agreements, employees looking to switch jobs and employers seeking to recruit talent cannot act freely. In reality, what job-hoppers and hiring companies should worry about is not non-competes but other often-overlooked clauses:
3.1 Non-Disclosure (NDA)
This is equivalent to confidentiality clauses.
Example: If a former employee joins a competitor and brings along technology, client lists, or confidential information, the previous employer can invoke the NDA to claim wrongdoing. If the new company’s technology or client lists bear similarities, it becomes nearly impossible to defend against such accusations.
3.2 Non-Conflicting
Often confused with non-competes, these clauses differ in scope:
Non-competition: Restrict post-employment work in the same/similar industry.
Non-conflicting: Prohibit activities that interfere with current job duties while still employed.
Risk: Job searches and recruitment often overlap in timing. For instance, an employee might negotiate with a new employer months before formally resigning. This overlap can become grounds for legal disputes.
3.3 Non-Solicitation
Often called “poaching bans,” these prohibit:
Poaching employees (e.g., a manager recruiting their former team to a new company).
Poaching clients (e.g., a salesperson bringing clients to a competitor).
These scenarios are common in job transitions and can lead to costly lawsuits.
While the nationwide ban on non-competition is significant, employees and employers must remain cautious. NDAs, conflict clauses, and non-solicitation agreements still impose strict limits. Don’t let the excitement over the new rule lead to reckless decisions.
10 Things About U.S. Labor Law: Stories Between Employers and Employees
I’m Xiaoxiao Liu, a U.S. attorney. Join us next time for more insights!
