On Wednesday, proponents of a plan to do away with noncompete clauses in Ohio spoke before a state Senate committee. The bill would make it illegal for companies to place limitations on their workers’ employment options once they quit their current position.
Although Ohio does not have a method for tracking post-employment limitations, legislative researchers point out that the Federal Trade Commission found that one in five workers nationwide is bound by a noncompete agreement. Through a 2024 rule, the FTC sought to outlaw noncompete agreements on a national level. The courts thwarted that attempt.
The Ohio proposal’s nonpartisan backers contend that noncompetes have spread far beyond any rational bounds. For instance, Senators Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, and Louis Blessing, R-Colerain Twp., frequently bring up Jimmy John’s requirement that employees sign noncompete agreements as a condition of employment. Following criticism from the public, the business decided to cease implementing the agreements.
GET THE HEADLINES FOR THE MORNING.
Noncompete clauses, according to employment lawyer Neil Klingshirn, may be useful but are vague.
Noncompetes may fight unfair competition, but he compared it to weeding your garden with a lawnmower. You have no weeds when you’re finished, but your garden isn’t that big either.
According to Klingshirn, the majority of governments include certain limitations on the agreements. He clarified that just eight states in the nation do not regulate noncompetes. Among them is Ohio.
He contended that although the contracts may appear to be an agreement between two persons, their effects extend much beyond that. Limiting employees’ options for future careers harms their potential employers or causes their new firms to fail before they may even launch. According to Klingshirn, it also slows down the economy and clogs court dockets.
According to Klingshirn, the agreements are frequently drafted in such a way as to impede movement needlessly. He compared the scenarios he encounters to a reoccurring nightmare.
They begin with a customer receiving an offer of employment in their field, but their current position has three clauses that are typically included in a set. Nondisclosure agreements are used to safeguard trade secrets, nonsolicitation agreements are used to protect clients, and noncompete agreements are used to protect clients.
Because she was in sales in this case, but is now transitioning to logistics, he explained, she can now adhere to the nondisclosure agreement and won’t be approaching potential clients. Although she won’t be interacting with customers, her noncompete clause prohibits her from working in any position for a competitor for a year. If she accepts the position, she will be in violation of the agreement.
He maintained that nondisclosure and nonsolicitation agreements alone are adequate to safeguard the employer’s interests in those situations.
According to Klingshirn, the judge will typically urge the parties to negotiate if the matter goes to trial. If not, the judge will make a decision that frequently strikes a balance between the employer’s commercial interests and intellectual property and the employee’s ability to find employment in the same field where they would have found themselves in the absence of the noncompete agreement.
According to Klingshirn, the difference is almost $50,000 in legal expenditures for each party with the same result. And compared to how they would have been governed by the nonsolicitation, trade secrets rules, everyone loses in that calculation.
Veeva Systems offers software consulting services to businesses involved in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical technology. According to company officials’ written evidence, the company’s purpose is to eliminate noncompete agreements countrywide by 2030 and is structured as a public benefit organization.
Veeva not only criticized the practice but also pointed out that it actually pays for legal counsel for potential hires who are bound by a noncompete clause. It has so far spent almost $10 million defending over 20 employees.
According to Veeva, most businesses, particularly smaller ones, are deterred from hiring an employee who might potentially be covered by a noncompete agreement just by the prospect of such high legal costs. This is true even in cases when the noncompete agreement is too broad and unlikely to withstand a court challenge.
Testimonials from a few of the workers Veeva has defended were provided.
Joby After graduating from college, George found employment and stayed there for 14 years. He remembered being marched out of the building when he started working for Veeva, and he later served legal documents at my house in front of my wife and kids. The judge dropped the case after it had been in court for almost a year.
Scott Mitreuter told how his former employer’s managers urged him to find another employment as his industry started to contract, but the company’s legal team then filed a lawsuit. All of Peter Stark’s workers were required to sign noncompete agreements as part of the acquisition of his business.
According to Stark, when people sign a paper to retain their jobs, they don’t consider having their personal liberties taken away. It’s crucial to defend them by doing away with noncompetes.
Lawmakers should not weaken the idea, said Sam Peak, Policy Manager for the Economic Innovation Group. He contended that the majority of the bill’s economic benefits may be compromised if wealthy earners were exempted. Peak cited Hawaii, which placed a strong emphasis on doing away with noncompete clauses in the tech industry, and said the state’s entrepreneurship rate increased by more than 10%. In contrast, Oregon, which exempted employees making less than $100,000 a year, experienced minimal change in the number of new businesses.
According to Peak, these results demonstrate how crucial it is to include highly skilled knowledge workers in any noncompete legislation so that the general public can benefit from newly established jobs and services.
Follow Xoron Bluesky, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal.
OUR WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY YOU.
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.