Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Proposed Non-Compete Ban

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
Against the backdrop of the FTC's rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide and the lawsuits challenging that rule, many states have considered legislation narrowing or outright banning non-competes.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Against the backdrop of the FTC's rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide and the lawsuits challenging that rule, many states have considered legislation narrowing or outright banning non-competes. Minnesota recently followed California, Oklahoma and North Dakota in adopting legislation banning all employment-based non-compete agreements. Washington state adopted additional requirements for using non-competes with its residents. And, Colorado recently limited the use of employee training repayment agreements. Meanwhile, the governors of New York and Maine recently vetoed legislation that would have banned most employee non-compete agreements.

On June 20, 2024, the Rhode Island legislature sent bill H8059/S2436 to Governor Dan McKee. The proposed Rhode Island bill not only would have prohibited new non-competes, but also would have prohibited the enforcement of existing non-competes with senior executives. Governor McKee vetoed the bill. In his veto message to the legislature, Governor McKee explained that the proposed bill goes beyond the proposed FTC rule, which does not prohibit enforcement of existing non-competes with senior executives and would put Rhode Island businesses at a national disadvantage, particularly if the FTC were to amend or repeal its non-compete ban while Rhode Island's more onerous ban remained in place. He further explained that while his "Administration is supportive of setting reasonable limits on the use of non-competes, [the proposed bill] did not address the valid concerns raised by the local business community... and makes Rhode Island an outlier as compared to other states."

Even in the absence of a bill broadly prohibiting non-competes, Rhode Island continues to have on its books statutes that limit the use of some non-competes. For example, in 2019, Rhode Island passed legislation restricting the use of non-compete agreements with non-exempt employees under the FLSA, students participating in an internship or short-term employment; employees aged 18 or younger; and low-wage workers (defined as earning 250% or less of the federal poverty level). And, on June 17, 2024, just a few days before the legislature sent him bill H8059/S2436, Governor McKee signed legislation that bans the use of non-competes with advanced practice registered nurses except for agreements in connection with the sale of business.

On July 3, 2024, we expect to receive a ruling in the Ryan lawsuit on plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the FTC's non-compete ban pending disposition of the litigation on the merits. It remains to be seen whether the Rhode Island legislature will try again, with proposed limits on the enforceability of non-competes that are scaled down or more in line with the FTC rule.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More