<p>Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. <em>MoFo ELC</em> equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.</p><h2>About Morrison Foerster</h2><p>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. <span>Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on <em>The American Lawyer</em>’s A-List</span>. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from<span> </span><em>Chambers</em><span> </span>and<span> </span><em>The Legal 500</em><span> </span>across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.</p>

Social

Search

Subscribe

Editors

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Melaleuca, Inc. v. Shaklee Corporation

International Lease Finance Co. (AIG) v. Air Lease Corporation

Financial Institution vs. Former Employees and Their New Employer

Cross-Border Poaching Dispute

Defeated Class Certification and Representative PAGA Claims in Grocery Manager Misclassification Action

Defeated Class Certification and Representative PAGA Claim in Retail Misclassification Action

Defeated Class Certification in Security Screening Action

Obtained Dismissal of Representative Wage-and-Hour Claim Involving Retail Pharmacists

Victory in Six-Year Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Whistleblower Retaliation Litigation

Dismissal with Prejudice of Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

CBC Group – Counseling and Investigation

Confidential Client – Counseling and Investigation

ON Semiconductor – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Uber Technologies, Inc. – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Intel Corporation – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Johnson & Johnson – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Taisho Pharmaceutical – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Terumo Corporation – M&A and Outsourcing Transaction

Confidential Clients – Employment Issues for Government Contractors

Our employment and labor lawyers apply deep experience as counselors and litigators and a rich understanding of employment law to achieve the best client outcomes.

Employment + Labor

Employment and Labor Lawyers

Employment: Employers

District of Columbia: Labor & Employment

Labor and Employment: Labor & Employment Disputes: Defense

Recommended: California – Labor and Employment

California: Labor & Employment: The Elite

Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)

National: Employment Law – Management (Tier 1)

National: Litigation – Labor & Employment (Tier 1)

National: Labor Law – Management (Tier 1)

Los Angeles: Litigation – Labor & Employment (Tier 1)

Los Angeles: Labor Law – Management (Tier 1)

San Francisco: Employment Law - Management (Tier 1)

San Francisco: Litigation: Labor & Employment (Tier 1)

<p>Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.</p>

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

<p><em>MoFo ELC</em> equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <span></span><a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a><span> </span>practice page and read about our <span></span><a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>.</p>

Employment_Law_blog_1200x600.jpg

Employment Law Commentary Banner

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

<p>Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.</p>

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

<p>In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.</p>

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

<p>Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.</p>

MoFo Tech Blog

<p>News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.</p>

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

<p>By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.</p>

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC.

<p>Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues</p>

Morrison Foerster - Footer

On January 11, 2021, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (“the Act”), effectively eliminatin

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Announcements

Artificial Intelligence

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Data, Cyber + Privacy

Department of Labor (DOL)

Discrimination

EEOC

European Union

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Leaves of Absence

Legislation

NLRB

Non-Compete

OFCCP

PAGA

Paid Sick Leave

Pay Equity

Reductions in force (RIFs)

Trade Secrets

Wage and Hour

Workplace Misconduct

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

The District of Columbia Joins Jurisdictions Banning Non-competes

The District of Columbia Joins Jurisdictions Banning Non-competes | Employment Law Commentary

The District of Columbia Joins Jurisdictions Banning Non-competes | MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

Andrew R. Turnbull

<p>On January 11, 2021, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020 (“the Act”), effectively eliminating non-competes in Washington, D.C., except under very limited circumstances. The Act is anticipated to take effect on March 19, 2021. If the Act becomes effective, not only will it add D.C. to California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma as the jurisdictions in the U.S. completely banning post-employment non-competes, but it will go beyond those laws in prohibiting non-competes and anti-moonlighting policies during employment. The Act also continues the trend of states passing laws limiting the use of non-compete agreements.</p><h3>Coverage</h3><p>The Act applies to all private employers “operating” in D.C. It covers nearly all employees and prospective employees who perform work or are reasonably anticipated to perform work in D.C. for covered employers, with certain limited exceptions, including:</p><ul><li>Volunteers engaging in the activities of a nonprofit, educational, charitable, or religious organization; and</li><li>Medical physicians with a medical license, who completed residency, and make over $250,000 per year.</li></ul><p>Because there is no threshold for the amount of work employees must perform in D.C. to be covered by the Act, it is unclear whether the Act will apply to individuals based outside of D.C. that occasionally work in D.C. It is also unclear whether the phrase “operating within the District” will be interpreted to apply to private employers who do not maintain an office in D.C., but have employees who perform services or work in D.C.</p><h3>Covered Non-competes</h3><p>The Act bans covered employers from entering into or enforcing non-competes with covered employees, whether the non-competes are in a formal contract or part of the employer’s workplace policies or practices. Significantly, the Act bars non-competes and policies that prohibit employees from “simultaneously or subsequently” being employed by or performing services for another person or operating an employee’s own business. Accordingly, unlike other jurisdictions, such as California, that bar post-employment non-compete agreements, the Act goes one step further by banning non-compete agreements both <em>during</em> and after employment.</p><h3>Agreements Not Covered</h3><p>The Act does not impact any non-compete agreements that are signed before the effective date of the Act. The Act also expressly exempts non-compete agreements executed in connection with the sale of a business and agreements restricting employees from disclosing an employer’s confidential information or trade secrets. The Act is silent, however, as to whether agreements not to solicit an employer’s customers, vendors, or employees are prohibited.</p><h3>Effective Date</h3><p>Any non-compete agreements entered into after the Act is enacted will be void and unenforceable. The Act was sent to Congress on February 1, 2021 for review. Unless Congress rescinds the law, which seems unlikely given that the Democrats have the majority in both chambers of Congress, the Act is projected to be effective on March 19, 2021.</p><h3>Retaliation Prohibited</h3><p>The Act makes it illegal to retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an employee who refuses to agree to or comply with a non-compete agreement that violates the Act. Specifically, employers are prohibited from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against employees for:</p><ul><li>Refusing      to agree to a non-compete provision;</li><li>Failing      to comply with a non-compete provision, whether in an agreement or a      workplace policy; or</li><li>“Asking,      informing, or complaining about the existence, applicability, or validity      of a non-compete provision or a workplace policy that the employee      reasonably believes is prohibited under” the Act to an employer.</li></ul><h3>Enforcement and Penalties</h3><p>Employees have a right to either file an administrative complaint with the mayor or pursue a civil claim in court. The D.C. mayor and attorney general are responsible for administering and enforcing administrative claims under the Act. If the Act becomes law, the mayor will be required to issue rules to implement the Act. The D.C. mayor or attorney general may also require covered employers to make records required by the Act available for inspection. Employers found to violate the Act are subject to administrative fines ranging from $350 to $3,000 per violation.</p><h3>Notice to Employees</h3><p>If the Act becomes effective, employers must also notify employees in writing of the non-compete ban by using the following notice:</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">No employer operating in the District of Columbia may request or require any employee working in the District of Columbia to agree to a non-compete policy or agreement, in accordance with the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020.</p><p>The notice must be provided to existing employees no later than: (1) 90 days of the Act going into effect using certain specified text in the Act; (2) seven days after hiring; or (3) 14 days after the employer receives a written request for such statement from the employee.</p><h3>Looking Ahead</h3><p>Employers with operations in D.C. or employees who work within D.C. should review their agreements and policies in light of the potential, significant changes to D.C. law. Since the Act aims to ban both post-employment non-competes and anti-moonlighting policies, employers will need to determine what agreements or policies they can put in place to protect themselves from unfair competition either before the Act takes effect or without the use of non-competes. Employers may want to consider trying to get non-compete agreements in place before the law takes effect. In addition, employers should also consider updating their confidential information policies and agreements, as well as their non-solicitation clauses, to ensure they can protect their rights to the greatest extent possible.</p><p>Because the Act might cover employees who only occasionally work in D.C., employers will also need to consider which employees might be covered by the Act. Although the Act will clearly apply to employees who are based in D.C., it remains to be seen whether employees only occasionally working in D.C. might be covered. Employers may want to consider whether they can use a choice of law provision in non-competes for non-D.C.-based employees to avoid the application of the Act.</p><p>With the Act being the latest in a trend of jurisdictions across the United States cracking down on non-compete provisions, it is important to continue to monitor developments in this area that may impact an employer’s non-compete strategies and practices. As we previously <a target="_blank" href="https://elc.mofo.com/topics/Tightening-Restrictions-on-Noncompetes.html">reported</a>, other states have issued or have pending legislation significantly limiting the use of non-competes, including several states banning such agreements with low wage workers. It is also possible that there could be federal efforts to limit the use of non-competes under the Biden administration. On the campaign trail, President Biden said that he opposes non-compete clauses, “except the very few that are absolutely necessary to protect a narrowly defined category of trade secrets.”</p>

More

2026 California Legislative Updates Compilation

DOJ Creates Initiative to Pursue Aggressive False Claims Act Enforcement Against DEI Programs and Civil Rights Violations

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump DEI Executive Orders

President Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action for Federal Contractors and Requires Enforcement Plan to End Unlawful DEI at Private Companies

FAR Council Withdraws “Pay Equity and Transparency” Proposed Rule

LinkedIN