Compliance Stuff

Key Points Virginia’s HB 636/SB 215 will bar employers from seeking or relying on wage or salary history and will require good-faith wage or salary ranges in all job postings beginning July 1, 2026.  SB 170 and HB 627/SB 128 will make noncompetes unenforceable after without-cause discharge absent disclosed severance and will sharply limit restrictive covenants for health care professionals as of July 1, 2026.  HB 1/SB 1 will raise Virginia’s minimum wage to $12.77, $13.75, and $15.00 per hour in annual steps through January 2029, with later increases set by the commissioner.  HB 238 will expand Virginia wage statutes by broadening the definitions of “employer” and “wages,” enhancing remedies and collective actions, and imposing new public-works recordkeeping and joint-and-several liability requirements.  HB 1207/SB 2 will create a statewide paid family and medical leave insurance program effective April 1, 2028, requiring employer contributions to a state fund unless...

A public workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week signaled that the agency is still pursuing an aggressive enforcement agenda when it comes to noncompete agreements. While the Trump FTC takes the position that it does not have the authority to ban noncompetes outright, Tuesday’s workshop made clear that it will take on “abusive” agreements on a case-by-case basis – on behalf of both workers and consumers . Read on for highlights from the workshop and steps employers can take to stay on the FTC’s good side. 3 Biggest Takeaways From FTC Workshop The message from the FTC under both the Biden and Trump administrations is the same: abusive noncompetes are a problem. The difference is in their approach.   Chairman Andrew Ferguson began the workshop by explaining how he views the FTC’s role in regulating noncompete agreements between employers and employees. He reiterated his position that  the attempted Biden-era FTC noncompete ban  was unlawful and tha...

It is well known that California takes a dim view towards restrictive covenants in the workplac e. Business & Professions Code Section 16600 prohibits employee non-compete agreements, stating that “ every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This statute has been read broadly and has been applied to both non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in employment contracts.  AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc ., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923, 929 (2018). Despite courts’ enthusiasm in applying Section 16600 to non-competes and non-solicits, courts have long held that confidentiality agreements do not violate Section 16600.  Fowler v. Varian Assocs., Inc.  (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 34, 44 (“[A]greements designed to protect an employer’s proprietary information do not violate section 16600.”);  Neville v. Chudacoff  (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1270 (citations ...

Kansas has long been an enforcement-friendly state for restrictive covenants, and it just got friendlier. A new state law, which took effect July 1, provides clearer guidelines and stronger protections for businesses seeking to enforce restrictive covenants . The new framework is especially helpful for employers that use customer or employee non-solicitation terms in their employment contracts . We’ll explain everything Kansas employers need to know about these changes, and what steps you should take next. Quick Background Earlier this year, Gov. Laura Kelly signed a bill ( SB 241 ) into law that made clarifying changes to the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The SB 241 updates took effect on July 1. Prior to July 1, the state law required a presumption of enforceability for restrictive covenants in employment agreements so long as they were “reasonable in view of all the facts and circumstances” and did not “contravene public welfare.” While this standard was enforcement-friendly, wheth...

On April 24, 2025, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act, significantly expanding the enforceability of noncompete laws in the state. Although Governor DeSantis has not signed the bill into law, it is expected that he will soon, and the law will be effective July 1, 2025 . Employers are encouraged to immediately review their noncompete agreements and existing practices in light of the bill’s major additions to the current legal landscape . Background In Florida, employers commonly enter into noncompete/nonsolicitation agreements with their employees to protect their trade secrets, confidential information, and relationships with prospective or existing customers. Such agreements are governed under section 542.334, Florida Statutes, which provides a list of factors that courts may consider in evaluating the agreement’s enforceability. To enforce a restrictive covenant agreement, employers...

On April 9, 2025, Kansas Governor Laura Kelley signed into law Senate Bill No. 241 (the “Bill”), which amends the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (the “Act”) to (a) create presumptions of enforceability for non-solicitation covenants meeting the Act’s requirements, and (b) require reformation of overbroad restrictive covenants .  The Act expressly excludes non-competition covenants from its scope.  K.S.A. § 50-163(d)(6).  The Bill amended Section 50-163 of the Act to clarify the scope of agreements and restrictive covenants covered by the Act.  Specifically, the Bill clarified that a non-solicit in which an employee agrees not to solicit employees shall be “conclusively presumed to be enforceable” where it: (a) seeks, on the part of the employer, to protect confidential trade secret business information or customer/supplier information,  or  (2) does not continue for more than two years following the employee’s employment.  K.S.A. § 50-163(c)(4). ...

  In June 2023, the   Georgia Court of Appeals held   in   North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer   that an employee non-solicitation covenant   must   contain an express geographic limitation to be enforceable. On September 4, 2024, however, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Georgia Court of Appeals’   Wimmer   decision and held that the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (GRCA) does   not   require that restrictive covenants contain an express geographic restriction to be enforceable, but non-competition and employee non-solicitation covenants governed by the Section 13-8-53(a) of GRCA must still be reasonable in geographic scope. The Georgia Supreme Court’s Decision In Georgia, the enforceability of restrictive covenants is governed by the GRCA, OCGA § 13-8-50  et seq . The GRCA provides that employment contracts that restrict competition must be “reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activi...

 Employers with employees, including remote workers, who live or work in more than one state have likely already faced the challenge of determining what employment laws apply, the work they apply to, and when. In recent years, the Colorado legislature has pushed to be on the cutting edge in this area, giving states that have traditionally been seen at the forefront of this topic, like California, a run for the title. As part of these efforts, we've seen the state take an aggressive approach when defining who these employment laws apply to. In many instances, according to the state of Colorado, these laws may apply even if your company has no traditional work site in Colorado . Do you let an employee work remotely from Colorado? Do any of your workers come into the state, even occasionally, for work? If so, you may have legal obligations under Colorado law you weren't even aware of. Here is a sampling of some, but certainly not all, of Colorado's most far-reaching employment...