As legislators and attorneys general continue to review the use of non-compete rules in each state, we recommend that employers regularly contact competent employment counsellors to verify their restrictive agreements and ensure compliance with the current legal situation. In addition, the emphasis on limiting the use of low-income non-compete clauses is a reminder of a phased approach to the use of restrictive agreements, with non-competition rules generally reserved for employees who are genuinely at risk to competition. Examples of non-competition deemed appropriate by New Hampshire courts are as follows: agreements may be considered unenforceable if a court finds that they are inappropriate in terms of duration, geographic scope, and limited type of employment or activity. Where a court finds that an agreement is inappropriate, it may amend the agreement in such a way as not to unreasment the former worker`s ability to work. In light of the above, it seems likely that the New Hampshire legislature intends to designate the notion of „non-piracy“ in RSA 275:70 to cover agreements preventing a worker from recruiting customers or employees of the employer.7. Does the law cover confidentiality agreements? With the various restrictions imposed on the use of restrictive agreements, lawyers should consider advising their professional clients in the review of boarding procedures in the implementation of non-competition clauses, reviewing the use of separation packages by the organisation that employs outgoing staff and considering the revision of multi-state agreements to ensure: that they correspond to the jurisdictions for which they may be used. It could be argued that RSA 275:70 applies only to non-competition rules contained in or signed in connection with a formal employment contract. This argument stems from the law that employers must give a copy of the non-competition clause to employees or potential workers when it is a „part of the employment contract“. The new law first defines „low-wage“ employees as those who earn hourly rates less than or equal to 200% of the federal minimum wage (employees who currently earn 14.50 $US or less per hour). In principle, the new law defines „non-competition“ as an agreement between an employer and a low-wager that prevents the low-wage assessor from working for another employer. the development of employment contracts, confidentiality agreements, prohibition of competition and debauchery; Rhode Island and New Hampshire have joined a growing number of states, including two other New England countries, Massachusetts and Maine, to limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements. Employers who have relied on agreements not to compete with non-exempt workers, interns, miners or low-wage workers in Rhode Island and low-wage workers in New Hampshire, in order to protect viable business interests, should consider alternatives to protect their interests, such as.
B confidentiality and non-negotiation agreements. In recent weeks, Maine and New Hampshire have passed legislation banning the use of low-income non-compete rules. Shortly after, on July 11, 2019, the Rhode Island legislature sent a similar bill for signature to Governor Raimondo`s office. The brevity of the new status creates many ambiguities for New Hampshire employers. In particular, the notion of „non-piracy“ is not defined, like the other terms used in the law. This term is not often used in employment contracts, which raises the question of whether „non-piracy agreement“ refers to (i) an agreement limiting the recruitment of clients, (ii) an agreement that limits the recruitment of employees, (iii) an agreement to disclose trade secrets or other confidential information; iv) a combination of those mentioned above or (v) something else. . . .