Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2023 update to “Garden Leave Provisions in Employment Agreements,” co-authored by our colleague Peter A. Steinmeyer and Lauri F. Rasnick.

The Note discusses garden leave provisions in employment agreements as an alternative or a companion to traditional employee non-compete agreements. It addresses the differences between garden leave and non-compete provisions, the benefits and drawbacks of garden leave, and drafting considerations for employers that wish to use garden leave provisions. This Note applies to private employers and is jurisdiction neutral.

Following is an excerpt (see below to download the full version in PDF format):…

our colleagues Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibustand Angel A. Perez co-authored an article in Thomson Reuters Practical Law’s The Journalentitled “Restrictive Covenants: Ethical Issues for Attorneys.”

Following is an excerpt:

Companies across the US commonly use non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants to protect the company’s legitimate business interests. These agreements are used with employees at all levels but often focus on those with access to the company’s trade secrets and confidential information. In-house attorneys, in particular, may take on non-legal, business roles that expose them to sensitive information that the company seeks to protect from …

As previously reported, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a rule on January 5, 2023, that would ban non-competes nationwide. There are serious questions about the FTC’s authority to promulgate such a rule and many practical reasons why such a sweeping approach is unwarranted—in particular at the federal level. The period for submitting formal comments to the proposed rule lasts 60 days following the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. The FTC did not file the proposed rule with the Federal Register until January 18, 2023, and it will not be published until January 19, 2023, meaning …

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released an update to “Trade Secret Laws: Connecticut,” a Q&A guide to state law on trade secrets and confidentiality for private employers in Connecticut, co-authored by our colleagues David S. Poppick and Carol J. Faherty, attorneys at Epstein Becker Green.

Following is an excerpt:

This Q&A addresses the state-specific definition of trade secrets and the legal requirements relating to protecting them. Federal, local, or municipal laws may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across several jurisdictions. …

In particular, this Q&A addresses:

• • Overview of State Trade Secret Law
  • Definition of

our colleagues Erik W. Weibust, Peter A. Steinmeyer, and Stuart M. Gershon co-authored an article in the legal backgrounder, published by the Washington Legal Foundation, titled “After 200+ Years Under State Law, FTC Proposes to Sweep Away All Noncompetites in Unauthorized Federal Power Grab.”

Following is an excerpt:

For over 200 years, the regulation of non-competition agreements (“non-competitions”) has been entirely the province of state law. Forty-seven states currently permit noncompetes, and the most recent state to ban them was Oklahoma in 1890. Yet the Biden Administration and its activist Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Chair want to do exactly that …