The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a ban on every non-compete agreement, nationwide. However, noncompete agreements remain legal in Pennsylvania — in certain limited instances.
That said, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, Michelle Henry, supports a ban of non-competes. While there’s nothing pending by the AG’s office in PA to ban noncompete agreements, AG Henry has penned an open letter, supporting the FTC’s coming ban, at least. AG Henry did not mince words:
“Non-compete agreements are unfair, overly restrictive, and ultimately hinder an employee’s ability to move from one job to another,” said Attorney General Henry. “This proposed rule will significantly benefit workers of all kinds, especially low- and middle-wage workers, by allowing them flexibility and opportunities for advancement and higher wages as their skills and experience grow.”
Overwhelming Number of States Support Ban on Work Restriction Clauses
AG Henry was not alone in supporting the FTC’s coming ban on work restriction clauses. Numerous attorney Attorney Generals from across the United States also signed off. Their joint letter provides:
We, the undersigned Attorneys General of the District of Columbia, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington (the “State AGs”), submit this Comment in support of the proposed rulemaking by the United States Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or “FTC”) entitled Non-Compete Clause Rule (the “proposed rule”).
Tough Talk, Little Action?
This begs the question: if work restriction is so heavily frowned upon in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine and the other complaining states, why aren’t these states doing more to ban such clauses, locally? Truth is, only four states have banned non-compete agreements locally: California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma.
Pennsylvania, however, has not banned non-compete enforcement.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Regulatory Action
In fairness to AG Henry, she may not be a coward, hiding behind a mere “letter” supporting the FTC ban. Rather, it could be the case that she questions the authority of any regulatory body — such as the FTC or any attorney general — to pass a new “law,” banning anything. After all, it’s the job of Congress — and each state’s legislature — to pass laws. Then the enforcement of such law falls upon the executive branch (FTC or AG’s Offices). So perhaps she’s a strict constitutionalist?
Only, if AG Henry truly supports the FTC ban of non-competes, why doesn’t she just ban them — herself — in PA?
Politics Aside – Every Work Restriction is Harmful
Nitpicking aside, our Pittsburgh law firm proudly supports the ban on work restriction agreements at all levels: federal, state, and even county-wide. In fact, our lawyers fight tirelessly to protect workers from the onerous burdens of such clauses, which mainly serves the interests of employers, looking to unduly restrict the rights of workers. Contact a Pittsburgh attorney at our firm for assistance.
The True Rationale Behind the Ban
Instead of banging the “discriminatory” drum, AG Henry should have simply pointed out one simple fact: work restriction agreements are unnecessary. Truth is, every state has some version of the Trade Secrets Protection Act, which bans workers from sharing truly confidential “secrets” from prospective employers. This, alone, is sufficient to protect employers. The FTC’s proposed ban on work restriction agreements would leave in place all the protections of true “trade secrets” under state and federal law.
Contact our Lawyers Today!
412.342.0992
Each Pittsburgh lawyer at our firm is available to assist with your employment related dispute!
