Executive Order on Non-Compete Agreements

July 28, 2021
Executive Order on Non-Compete Agreements

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order aimed at promoting a more competitive marketplace for America workers, businesses, and consumers. In order to promote workers’ ability to switch jobs and negotiate higher wages, the Order encourages the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in employment contracts. If the FTC does propose a ban on non-competes, there certainly would be much debate about whether the FTC has the authority to implement such a ban and whether the ban would in fact “promote competition in the American economy.


Currently non-compete agreements are regulated by states, which diverge on whether and to what extent they enforce non-compete agreements. In 2018, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Noncompetition Agreement Act limiting the use of non-compete agreements by providing strict criteria that the agreement must meet in order to be enforceable. The law applies to contracts between employers and independent contractors entered into after October 1, 2018.


The law provides that to be enforceable, a non-compete agreement:


  • must be no broader than necessary to protect employers’ legitimate business interests, which include employers’ trade secrets, employers’ confidential information, or employers’ goodwill with customers;
  • cannot last for more than one year after the end of employment; and
  • must be reasonable with respect to geographic area and activities restricted.


The law also includes a provision requiring non-compete agreements to contain a garden leave clause or some other form of mutually agreed to consideration specified in the agreement. A garden leave clause would require employers to pay employees 50% of their highest salary during the last 2 years, while the non-compete agreement was in effect.


Under the law, non-compete agreements cannot be enforced against (1) non-exempt employees; 2) employees who are terminated without cause or laid off; (3) undergraduate or graduate students engaged in an internship or other short-term employment; and (4) employees aged 18 or younger. Other Massachusetts laws also ban non-compete agreements for physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, broadcasters, and lawyers.


For questions about non-competes or any other employment law matter, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at (413) 586-2288.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.