Search form

Illinois Freedom to Work Act: One State’s Reaction to Overreaching Non-Compete Agreements

By Peter R. Bulmer
  • August 25, 2016

In an effort to address possible overuse of non-compete agreements by certain employers, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner has signed into law the Illinois Freedom to Work Act. The Act prohibits private sector employers from entering into non-compete restrictions with “low-wage employees” and renders any such agreements “illegal and void.” The Act applies to non-compete agreements entered into on or after the law’s effective date, January 1, 2017.

Under the Act, a “low-wage employee” is any employee who earns the greater of (1) the hourly minimum wage under federal (currently, $7.25 per hour), state (currently, $8.25 per hour), or local law (currently, $10.50 per hour in Chicago) or (2) $13.00 per hour. As a practical matter, until the hourly minimum wage is increased above $13.00 per hour, the law prohibits non-compete agreements with any employee making $13.00 or less per hour.

The Act prohibits an employer from entering into an agreement that restricts the “low-wage employee” from performing:

  1. any work for another employer for a specified period of time;
  2. any work in a specified geographical area; or
  3. work for another employer that is similar to such low-wage employee’s work for the employer included as a party to the agreement.

The law comes on the heels of reports published by the Treasury Department and the White House, as well as pressure by state attorneys general, on a well-known restaurant franchisor to stop using non-compete agreements with store-level employees. For example, in June 2016, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the franchisor, seeking to bar it from using non-compete agreements with low-wage staff. With the Freedom to Work Act, the Illinois legislature and Governor Rauner stepped in and have functionally implemented the bar that the Attorney General is seeking to have imposed by the court.

Also in June 2016, the same franchisor reached an agreement with the New York State Attorney General in which it agreed to stop including non-compete agreements in hiring packets used for low-wage workers and that it would not support any franchisee’s attempt to enforce such agreements. New York franchisees of that company also agreed to void existing agreements and to stop using them. The New York Attorney General has publicized similar agreements with other employers.

There appears to be widespread support by public officials to “do something” about the perceived overreaching by some employers to tie up workers who do not pose any realistic threat either to the employers’ confidential information or to their customer base. The Freedom to Work Act is Illinois’ response to that perception.

Unless an employer has workers who are making less than $13.01 per hour and requires them to sign non-competes, the Freedom to Work Act has no impact on its business. In addition, the Act does not affect non-disclosure or other agreements targeted at protecting confidential information.

On its face, however, the Act is unclear as to its effect on agreements with employees in which an employee promises not to solicit customers or employees. Arguably, the Act eliminates complete bars to employment of low-wage workers where their mere employment with a competitor, in and of itself, does not pose any real competitive threat. But what of the employee who has established a loyal following either within the employer’s workforce or with its customers? Does the Act prohibit that employee’s employer from restricting the employee from soliciting coworkers after he or she leaves to join the employee at a competitor? Does the Act prohibit the employer from restricting the employee from soliciting former customers with whom he or she had established relationships? One reading of the prohibitions may be that the Act does not restrict specific, tailored, and limited restrictions that otherwise would be enforceable under Illinois law; but another possible reading of those prohibitions may be that there can be no restrictions on the work performed by the low-wage worker at a competitor. Time, and the Illinois courts, will tell.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about the Act and how employers can address specific organizational needs effectively.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 27, 2017

Proposed New York City Council Legislation Would Add Private Right of Action to Earned Sick Time Act and Prohibit Non-Competes for Low-Wage Employees

July 27, 2017

New legislation introduced in the New York City Council would add a private right of action to the Earned Sick Time Act (Introduction 1667) and prohibit employers from entering into a covenant not to compete with any low-wage employee of that employer (Introduction 1663). Introduction 1667 was sponsored by the Council’s Deputy Leader... Read More

June 29, 2017

New Law Brings Changes to Nevada’s Non-Compete Law

June 29, 2017

Over the last year, Nevada’s non-compete law has undergone a number of changes. The latest is a new law setting forth a new standard by which non-compete agreements are to be evaluated. Golden Road Nearly a year ago, on July 21, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. d/b/a Atlantis Casino... Read More

December 12, 2016

Fast-Food Restaurant CEO Tapped to Head Labor Department: What to Expect

December 12, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive Officer of CKE Holdings, the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, to head the U.S. Department of Labor. Puzder was a lawyer in St. Louis and represented the founder of Carl’s Jr. He later became the general... Read More