Posts

Showing posts with the label non-compete covenants

Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions

At a Glance New Wyoming law voids most non-compete agreements. Law includes restrictions on certain training and expense repayment agreements, and includes special rules for physicians. On March 19, 2025, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed into law  Senate File 107 , now Enrolled Act No. 87 (the “Act”), which makes any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of labor  void . The law will apply to contracts entered into on or after the effective date of July 1, 2025 . While not retroactive, the Act contains language broad enough to make most non-compete covenants with workers void regardless of a worker’s status as an employee or an independent contractor, or the type of agreement the covenant may be found in. In addition to covering non-compete provisions, the Act also contains a restriction on training repayment agreements and expense relocation agreements that do not satisfy statutory limitations . Finally, the ...

"In Any Capacity" Language Dooms Georgia Non-Compete Provision

Prior to the enactment of Georgia’s Restrictive Covenant Act (“GRCA”), Georgia courts uniformly struck down non-compete provisions that used “in any capacity language”, i.e., a non-compete that prohibited an employee from working for a competitor in any capacity and not limited to the services that the employee performed for his former employer . Recently, in  All States AG Parts, LLC v. Herzig  (February 2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals followed the pre-GRCA rationale and struck down what it deemed to be an overbroad non-compete. In All States, the employer All States AG Parts (“ASAP”) provided replacement parts for agricultural and construction equipment. ASAP employed Mr. Rose in Outside Sales. Mr. Rose resigned his employment with ASAP and began working for a direct competitor . When ASAP sued Mr. Rose, he argued that the non-competition provision in his employment agreement was overbroad. The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determi...