Illinois employers have limited time to prepare for the new restrictive convenant law -- it takes effect on Jan. 1

  • Ice Miller chart

    Ice Miller chart

  • Heather Adams

    Heather Adams

  • Paul Sweeney

    Paul Sweeney

  • Sloan Holladay-Crawford

    Sloan Holladay-Crawford

 
By Heather Adams, Paul Sweeney and Sloan Holladay-Crawford
Ice Miller LLP
Updated 9/9/2021 2:47 PM

On Aug. 13, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a new law impacting covenants not-to-compete and non-solicitation agreements (as to both employees and customer solicitations) in the state of Illinois.

Public Act 102-03581 will take effect on Jan. 1 and will police all such agreements entered into on or after that date. Prior to the signing of the act, the validity of noncompete and non-solicitation agreements in Illinois was decided by the courts under Illinois common law and the prior version of the Illinois Freedom to Work Act, effective Jan. 1, 2017.

 

The new law amends the Illinois Freedom to Work Act. The most significant changes enacted by the new law are described in the attached chart.

Notably, under the new law, covenants covering confidentiality; nondisclosure or use of trade secrets and confidential information; invention assignment; and reapplication of employment, do not constitute noncompete agreements covered by the new act or prior law. Further, the act does not bar or affect the use of non-competes or non-solicitation agreements with the owners and buyers/sellers of a business in connection with acquisitions.

The new law likewise does not affect or prohibit "garden leave" provisions, i.e., where the employee receives advance notice of termination, during which notice the employee continues to be "employed" and paid by the employer.

The new law also expressly codifies an extended application of the "blue pencil" doctrine, allowing an Illinois court to rewrite unenforceable provisions of noncompete agreements to make them reasonable and enforceable. In doing so courts must consider factors such as: fairness of the restrictions as originally drafted; whether the original restrictions reflect a good-faith effort to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer; the extent of the reformation; and whether the parties agreed to authorize modification of the agreement when executed.

It also bears noting that the act makes clear that "(e) extensive judicial reformation of a covenant not to compete or covenant not to solicit may be against public policy ... and a court may refrain from wholly rewriting contracts."

by signing up you agree to our terms of service
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
 

Questions regarding the new law remain unanswered

Of note, the new law does not impact agreements entered into prior to Jan. 1. But, at the same time, the new law does not answer the question of whether it impacts agreements that are renewed or merely modified on or after Jan. 1. It likewise does not answer the question of whether the new law applies to agreements signed in 2021 for employment commencing in 2022.

The new law comes on the heels of the Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

The new Illinois law comes on the heels of President Biden's Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which was signed on July 91. This executive order encourages the Federal Trade Commission to "consider ... exercis(ing) the FTC's statutory rule-making authority ... to curtail the unfair use of noncompete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit work mobility."

In addition, several states across the country have similarly entered into the fray and prohibited the enforcement of noncompete agreements, specifically, for low-wage workers. 2 For illustrative purposes, Massachusetts prohibits noncompete agreements for employees classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act; Maine at 400% of the federal poverty level; Maryland at $15 per hour or $31,200 annually; New Hampshire at $14.50 per hour; Rhode Island at 250% of the federal poverty labor or those individuals nonexempt under the FLSA; Virginia at the average weekly wage in Virginia; Washington at $100,000 for employees or $250,000 for independent contractors (both annually); Oregon at $100,533, and Nevada at the wage threshold of whether an employee is paid solely on an hourly wage basis.

As the workforce shortage across the county continues, the tightening of restrictive covenant laws and regulations will likely become a growing trend both federally and across the country.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
 

Illinois employers should review their agreements for compliance

As for Illinois employers, they should begin reviewing their practices and standard documents related to restrictive covenants now to ensure compliance by Jan. 1. Although the new law does not appear to apply to agreements entered into and in place prior to the effective date, employers should have a plan in place for new agreements going forward. Please contact Heather Renée Adams at (312) 726-7312 or heather.adams@icemiller.com, Paul Sweeney at (317) 236-5894 or paul.sweeney@icemiller.com, Sloan Holladay-Crawford at (317) 236-5930 or sloan.holladay-crawford@icemiller.com or another member of Ice Miller LLP's Labor, Employment and Immigration Practice Group if you have any questions regarding this article.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.

1 The executive order is also available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/.

2 Massachusetts, M.G.L.A. 149 § 24L; Maine, 26 M.R.S.A. § 599-A; Maryland, MD Code, Labor and Employment, § 3-716; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:70-a; Rhode Island, Gen. Laws 1956, § 28-59-1 et seq.; Virginia, VA Code Ann. § 40.1-28.7:8; Washington, West's RCWA 49.62 et seq.; Oregon, O.R.S. § 653.295; and Nevada, 2021 Nevada Laws Ch. 77 (A.B. 47).

0 Comments
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
 
Article Comments
Attention: We are experiencing technical difficulties with our Facebook Comments module at this time. Comments will remain disabled until we are able to resolve the problem. We apologize for the interruption. We invite you to engage with our content and talk with other commenters on our Daily Herald Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/DailyHeraldFans/. Thank you.