On Monday, March 18, 2019, Governor Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill No. 121, which makes nondisclosure provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements that are intended to conceal the details of claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment unenforceable and against public policy in New Jersey. Section 1 of the new law warns that a “provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” is against public policy and unenforceable.” The law does not define “employment contract” and leaves open to interpretation whether it applies to all agreements between employer and employee, whether an employment agreement, a separation agreement, or a settlement agreement. The prohibition on waiving any procedural right would make arbitration agreements, which by their nature waive the right to a jury trial, also invalid and unenforceable in contravention of the Federal Arbitration Act and recent United States Supreme Court precedent. An immediate challenge to this aspect of the law is likely since it casts doubt on all arbitration agreements between an employer and employee that seek to include claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Section 1 also prohibits a prospective waiver of any right or remedy under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) or any other statute or...
Non-compete agreements clearly are the subject of scrutiny by the New York Attorney General’s office, which just issued guidance called “Non-Compete Agreements In New York State – Frequently Asked Questions” (“Guidance”). The Guidance, in the form of FAQs, generally describes New York common law regarding enforceability of non-competition provisions in employment contracts or standalone restrictive covenant agreements. It notes that a court has the ability to invalidate or modify an overly-broad non-compete. It also provides guidance to employees regarding whether to sign a non-compete, which it states is not a legal requirement but only a potential mandate of an employer. The Guidance includes a list of considerations for employees before they sign a non-compete. Further, it provides contact information within the New York Attorney General’s Office for individuals to obtain assistance to address unreasonable non-competes. Finally, the Guidance describes Attorney General-proposed legislation to prohibit non-competes for workers earning below $75,000 per year. The Attorney General issued the Guidance after a recent matter it handled in which it obtained prospective compliance by an employer regarding its use of non-competes. The matter is the subject of an Attorney General press release. It is imperative that employers who use restrictive covenants in employment agreements and standalone restrictive covenants review their forms and procedures to comply with applicable law....
Last week, in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that restrictive covenants not to compete are unenforceable if made during a worker’s term of employment unless supported by “new and valuable consideration, beyond mere continued employment.” That is so, according to the Court, even if the agreement contains language that would otherwise obviate the requirement of consideration pursuant to the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”). That statute provides that “[a] written release or promise . . . shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement, in any form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.”
A Federal District Court recently refused to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, among several state law claims, the plaintiff – the individual defendant’s former employer – also asserted a claim under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In NouvEON Tech. Partners, Inc. v. McClure, No. 3:12-CV-633-FDW-DCK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29208 (March 5, 2013), a North Carolina Federal District Court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a myriad of state law claims filed by NouvEON against its former employee (McClure) and her new employer (Smarter Systems).
New Jersey Court Finds Violation of Computer Related Offenses Act and Other Unlawful Conduct, Ordering Disgorgement of Profits, Attorneys’ Fees and Punitive Damages
In B&H Securities, Inc. v. Duane Pinkey et al., the New Jersey Superior Court found that former employees taking computer files from – and using the files to unfairly compete with – their employer violated the Computer Related Offenses Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:38A-1 et seq. (“CROA”), and breached other common law and contractual obligations. The Court awarded actual damages, based on plaintiff B&H’s lost profits of $737,087.00, as well as punitive damages of $100,000 and attorneys’ fees under the CROA.
New Jersey District Court Enjoins Former Financial Services Employee from Taking Customer Information
In a case to be noted by financial services entities that are signatories to the “Protocol for Broker Recruiting,” a New Jersey District Court issued a preliminary injunction to a financial services employer, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (“plaintiff”) to prevent a former financial advisor employee from retaining certain client information that he downloaded from his computer prior to his departure from plaintiff. Plaintiff was a party to the “Protocol for Broker Recruiting” that prescribes a method for a departing employee to retain certain client information when leaving for another financial services institution. To grant the injunction, the Court found that plaintiff showed it likely would succeed on its underlying breach of contract claim, it would suffer immediate irreparable harm absent the injunction, defendant would not suffer harm if enjoined, and the injunction favors the public’s interest. The Court essentially decided that if the Protocol is not followed in the first instance, a departing financial representative’s subsequent compliance is tainted and insufficient to withstand subsequent legal challenge.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) is a federal law that, in part, makes it a crime to access a computer in an unauthorized manner. In the employment context, the statute has proven valuable in protecting confidential and proprietary information that employees can access on their employers’ electronic systems. Recent decisions by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Third Circuits emphasize the breadth of the CFAA’s application to the workplace.