Search form

New Connecticut Statute Restricts Physician Non-Compete Agreements

By Edward M. Richters, Clifford R. Atlas and Erik J. Winton
  • May 6, 2016

The Connecticut General Assembly has passed a bill that establishes significant new restrictions on physician non-compete agreements in the state. The governor is expected to sign the bill (Senate Bill 351, as amended) soon.

Under SB 351, a physician covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is:

  1. necessary to protect a legitimate business interest;
  2. reasonably limited in time, geographic scope, and practice restrictions as needed to  protect that interest; and
  3. otherwise consistent with the law and public policy.

The statute also specifies that the party seeking to enforce a physician covenant not to compete bears the burden of proof at any proceeding. These factors and burden of proof are consistent with current Connecticut common law as to non-compete agreements in general. The remainder of the new statute is not.

For covenants not to compete that are entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, the statute prohibits restricting a physician’s competitive activities (i) for longer than one year and (ii) beyond 15 miles from the primary site where the physician practices (i.e., the office, facility, or location from which a majority of the revenue from the physician’s services is generated).

Additionally, a covenant not to compete entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, is not enforceable against a physician if (i) the employment agreement at issue was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and the agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to the expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employer terminates the employment or contractual relationship without cause.

The statute sets an additional restriction for covenants not to compete that are entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, between physicians and (1) hospitals, health systems, or medical schools, or (2) medical foundations formed by any of these entities. It allows these covenants to restrict a physician’s right to practice only with another such entity or medical foundation.

Finally, SB 351 provides that if a covenant is rendered void and unenforceable under the statute, the remaining provisions of the contract remain in full force and effect, including provisions requiring the payment of damages for injuries suffered because of the contract’s termination.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding SB 351 and assist healthcare employers to address specific non-compete scenarios.

©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

January 9, 2018

New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont May Restrict Use of Non-Compete Agreements in Employment

January 9, 2018

Proposals to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in employment have been introduced in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. This appears to be the continuation of a trend that started nearly a year ago. On January 23, 2017, the Massachusetts Legislature introduced six separate bills seeking to curb employers’ use of non-... Read More

December 27, 2017

Massachusetts Non-Compete Legislation – A Walk Through the ‘Garden’ … Leave Provision

December 27, 2017

With the approaching New Year bringing the possible passage of non-compete legislation in Massachusetts, we examine here the “Garden Leave” provision included in several proposed bills. The proposed “Garden Leave Bills” attempt to limit the frequency of enforcement of non-compete agreements and require compensation to employees for any... Read More

December 6, 2017

New Jersey Restrictive Covenant Bill Aims to Change the Landscape

December 6, 2017

Providing a private right of action and barring judicial modification are just two features of a bill that aims to severely limit the use of non-compete agreements in New Jersey. Over the past few years, academic and media reports have claimed that employers are abusing the use of restrictive covenant agreements to the detriment of... Read More