Virtually 5 years prior to now, the Massachusetts Noncompetition Settlement Act (“MNAA”, moreover sometimes abbreviated as a result of the “MNCA”) went into affect. That statute ushered in new requirements for non-competes throughout the Bay State (along with not solely residents of Massachusetts, however as well as these which are solely employed in Massachusetts). Among the many many MNAA’s requirements is a dialogue board selection provision that purports to require civil suits related to non-competes to be launched utterly throughout the county throughout which the employee resides, or if every occasions agree, in Suffolk county in Massachusetts.
No matter being in affect for nearly a half-decade, there have been comparatively few revealed cases decoding the MNAA (see proper right here and proper right here for a synopsis of some these cases). Recently, nonetheless, a federal resolve in Virginia weighed in on the statute’s dialogue board requirement, determining {{that a}} swimsuit in opposition to a Massachusetts employee might proceed in federal courtroom throughout the Japanese District of Virginia, comparatively than be dismissed and re-filed in Massachusetts.
In Hilb Group of New England, LLC v. LePage, the courtroom observed that the employee, Susan LePage, had labored for the plaintiff or its predecessor as an insurance coverage protection account authorities for larger than 20 years in Massachusetts. Upon Hilb’s acquisition of her former employer in 2019 (after the MNAA’s environment friendly date), LePage was required to sign a model new restrictive covenants settlement in Hilb’s favor. Two years later, she resigned and commenced selling competing merchandise, attainable aided by purchaser data that she had emailed to her non-public e mail account (along with contact data, revenue figures, and totally different particulars of Hilb accounts that LePage had serviced). Hilb then sued LePage in federal courtroom in Virginia for breach of the settlement, misappropriation, and totally different claims. Notably, no matter LePage being a Massachusetts employee, the settlement designated Virginia state and federal courts as a result of the distinctive dialogue board for any swimsuit related to the settlement, although it was concurrently designated Massachusetts laws as controlling.
In response to the swimsuit, LePage moved to dismiss, arguing amongst totally different causes that beneath the MNAA, Massachusetts is the one relevant dialogue board for the swimsuit. The courtroom disagreed, noting that the Supreme Courtroom docket in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (The Bremen), 407 US 1 (1972), had launched a protection of implementing dialogue board selection clauses moreover the place it is likely to be “unreasonable” to take motion. Such a clause is unreasonable, the courtroom well-known, the place its enforcement would “contravene a robust public protection of the dialogue board state” (amongst totally different points). Whatever the MNAA’s purported requirement that Massachusetts be the distinctive dialogue board for litigation, and even though the settlement notably designated Massachusetts laws as controlling, the courtroom reiterated that federal laws preempts Massachusetts’ procedural tips. Moreover, the courtroom held that the presumption of enforceability for dialogue board selection clauses launched in The Bremen was not weakened by Massachusetts’s apparent disfavor for worldwide dialogue board selection clauses, and that allowing Massachusetts laws to trump the federal protection in favor of enforcement of debate board selection clauses would “allow provincial attitudes to dominate.” Lastly, the courtroom observed that to date, no Massachusetts courtroom has determined that the MNAA evinces a “sturdy public protection” of the Commonwealth which will require enforcement of the statute’s dialogue board selection provision over the contractually agreed-upon Virginia dialogue board clause.
Tellingly, one different federal courtroom issued the identical opinion just a few days prior to now. In Onward Search LLC v. Noble, a resolve throughout the District of Connecticut shot down a Massachusetts resident’s comparable argument {{that a}} lawsuit arising out of his alleged violations of restrictive covenants should be dismissed. In that case, the contract designated Connecticut laws as controlling (not Massachusetts laws, as was the case in LePage). The courtroom agreed with the employer that the Connecticut choice-of-law provision was enforceable, and that Connecticut was the acceptable dialogue board for the litigation, nevertheless that the employee was a Massachusetts resident. Identical to the LePage courtroom, the Noble courtroom held that federal laws determines whether or not or not a obligatory dialogue board chosen in a contract is enforceable, and likewise held that the MNAA could not overrule the occasions’ chosen laws.
Notably, the protection in favor of enforcement of debate board selection clauses launched in The Bremen (and reiterated in every LePage and Noble) solely applies in federal cases, so it stays unclear whether or not or not a worldwide state courtroom would enable litigation to proceed in opposition to a Massachusetts employee throughout the face of the MNAA dialogue board selection requirement, or if such a courtroom would dismiss the case to be heard in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, primarily based totally on the LePage and Noble cases, employers might need luck implementing a worldwide dialogue board selection clause in opposition to Massachusetts staff, nevertheless the statute’s requirements (and even the place Massachusetts laws applies). The place there isn’t any such factor as a fee-shifting or totally different financial penalty beneath the statute for failure to regulate to the MNAA (not like in one other states much like Washington and Illinois), worldwide employers nonetheless relying upon out of state dialogue board clauses would possibly hope that courts outdoor of the Commonwealth will take the similar technique as a result of the LePage and Noble courts.