• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Join Our Network
  • Affiliate News
  • Newsletters
  • Labor & Employment Law Events
  • Our Feeds
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Employment Law Information Network

All Things Labor and Employment Law

Get Our Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice
Daily Newsletter
Weekly Newsletter
California Newsletter
  • Federal Articles
  • State Articles
  • HR News
  • HR Policy Samples
  • HR Guidebook
  • Employment Contracts
Home > State Law Articles > Pennsylvania > Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

Articles Discussing Restrictive Covenants In Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Company Drops Challenge to FTC Noncompete Ban After Injunction Denial

Posted: October 9, 2024 | Ogletree Deakins Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

A Pennsylvania company has dropped its challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) noncompete ban after a Pennsylvania federal judge denied the company’s bid to block the rule. The dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit leaves the fate of the ban to potential appeals from two federal court decisions, one in

Pennsylvania Enacts Law Banning Certain Non-Compete Agreements with Healthcare Providers

Posted: July 28, 2024 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

On July 23, 2024, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (the “Act”), which bans certain noncompete covenants, including patient nonsolicitation provisions, between an employer and health care practitioner if the covenant is more than one year or the health care practitioner was “dismissed

Pennsylvania Federal Court Declines to Block FTC’s Non-Compete Rule

Posted: July 25, 2024 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

On July 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, declined to block the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule that would cause most non-compete agreements, with few exceptions, to be unenforceable (referred to as the “Non-Compete

Pennsylvania Bans Most Non-Compete Agreements for Healthcare Practitioners

Posted: July 23, 2024 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has signed the “Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act” (House Bill 1633), which restricts the ability of employers and healthcare practitioners to enter into non-compete agreements. The Act goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

Non-Compete News: Open Season? Pennsylvania Supreme Court Invalidates No-Poach Provision Between Businesses

Posted: May 11, 2021 | Ford Harrison Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In a recent decision and case of first impression, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that a no-hire of employees provision between a business and its vendor was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint on trade. This continues a nationwide pushback against restrictive covenants and underscores that Pennsylvania strongly disfavors such restrictions unless they are narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate interest and do not harm the public, including innocent third parties.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Consideration for Noncompetes

Posted: July 10, 2020 | Ogletree Deakins Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In Pennsylvania, noncompetition agreements must, among other things, be supported by adequate consideration to be enforceable. It is well established that an initial offer of employment constitutes adequate consideration. It is also well established that a noncompetition agreement presented to an employee after the start of employment must be supported

Consideration Required to Bind Existing Employees to Noncompetes, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds

Posted: December 1, 2015 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a non-compete signed during the course of employment, without additional consideration, is not enforceable even though the agreement stated that the parties “intend to be legally bound.” Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Uniform Written Obligations Act Does Not Allow Employer To Enforce Noncompete Unsupported By Consideration

Posted: November 30, 2015 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. (No. J-40-2015), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on an issue of first impression: whether the state’s Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”) allows employers to enforce a noncompete given to an employee while already employed without providing consideration. On November 18, 2015, the high court affirmed a Pennsylvania Superior Court’s May 2014 decision, ruling that without valuable consideration, noncompetes are unenforceable.

Pennsylvania Court Enforces Forum Selection Clause in Franchise Non-Compete Against Florida-Based Defendant, and His Non-Signatory Wife

Posted: August 28, 2014 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In yet another example of an increasing willingness to enforce properly-drafted forum selection clauses in non-compete disputes, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied a motion to dismiss and motion for transfer of venue brought by the former franchisee defendants, a husband and wife. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. v. Romano, No. 13-5747 (E. D. Penn. Aug. 21, 2014).

Pennsylvania Opinion Highlights Need to Ensure Appropriate Geographic Scope and to Lay Groundwork for Protecting Interest in Specialized Training in Noncompetes

Posted: August 25, 2014 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In Peter Zimmerman Architects, Inc. v. Toates, No. 3022 EDA 2013 (Aug.19, 2014), a firm specializing in custom, residential architecture sought to enforce a noncompetition agreement against a former employee and the new architectural firm he founded. As written, the noncompete would have prevented the former employee from (1) participating in the business of residential architecture for three years within an area extending 25 miles from the company’s office and (2) engaging in residential architecture for the renovation or new construction of one-of-a-kind properties for five years. The latter restriction had no geographic limit.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Holds Continued Employment Not Sufficient Consideration for Non-Compete

Posted: May 23, 2014 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In a case of “first impression”, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that a restrictive covenant entered into after employment has already commenced is unenforceable if not supported by separate valuable consideration. Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., No. 1223 MDA 2013.

Claims in Pennsylvania Lawsuit Alleging En Masse Defection of Employees as “Sabotage” Survive Dismissal

Posted: April 24, 2014 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

A U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has allowed several claims to proceed to trial following a motion for summary judgment by defendants in Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. 721 Logistics, LLC, et al, No. 12-0864 (April 4, 2014). The allegations in the case go beyond the typical defection of an employee or two to join a competitor.

Pennsylvania Court Upholds Choice of Law Provision in Non-Solicitation Case Involving California Employee

Posted: February 7, 2014 | Jackson Lewis Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In another example of out-of-state employers utilizing choice of forum and choice of law provisions to bind California employees to restrictive covenants, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held that a Pennsylvania choice of law and forum clause was enforceable as against a California resident.

Defense Attorneys’ Fee Standards Set in Pennsylvania Trade Secret Suits

Posted: January 18, 2012 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

In Best Medical International, Inc. v. Spellman, a federal court in Pennsylvania determined—in a case of first impression—that attorneys’ fees may be awarded to the prevailing defending party under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”) when it has demonstrated:

Pennsylvania Court Clarifies When Attorneys’ Fees May Be Imposed For Bad-Faith Prosecution Of Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets

Posted: January 12, 2012 | Littler Category: Pennsylvania - Restrictive Covenants

When may attorneys’ fees be imposed on a plaintiff for prosecuting a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets in bad faith under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (PUTSA)? In a matter of first impression, in Best Medical International v. Spellman [pdf], a Pennsylvania district court held that bad faith justifies attorneys’ fees when two criteria are met:

Primary Sidebar

Pennsylvania Index

  • Pennsylvania – General
  • Pennsylvania – Restrictive Covenants
  • Pennsylvania – Unemployment Compensation
  • Pennsylvania – Wage & Hour
  • Pennsylvania – Workers' Compensation

Site Search

Connect With Us!

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Article Calander

July 2025
SMTWTFS
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031 
« Jun    

Privacy Policy, Disclaimers & Copyright
elinfonet.com, LLC • P.O. Box 45, Chinchilla, PA 18410 • 570-301-6277 • info@elinfonet.com