Search form

Utah Enacts New Laws Addressing Post-Employment Restrictions and Unauthorized Computer Use

By Clifford R. Atlas and Conrad S. Kee
  • April 7, 2016

Utah has enacted two new laws of importance to employers concerned about trade secrets, customer relationships, and other protectable interests in its 2016 legislative session. The first statute, the Post-Employment Restrictions Act (Utah Code § 34-51-101, et seq.), sets a one-year time limit on non-competition agreements entered into on or after May 10, 2016. The second statute, the Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act (Utah Code § 63D-3-103, et seq.), establishes a state cause of action with an arguably broader reach than the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030).

Post-Employment Restrictions Act

The Post-Employment Restrictions Act is the result of a limited consensus in the Utah legislature following extensive attention from the Utah business community. The Post-Employment Restrictions Act applies only to non-competition agreements and specifically exempts non-solicitation agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and confidentiality agreements from the definition of a post-employment restrictive covenant. Additionally, the Act excepts severance agreements entered into at or after discharge or restrictions that arise out of the sale of a business. An employer that seeks to enforce an unenforceable non-competition agreement is liable for the attorneys’ fees and actual damages of the employee.

Initially, the Utah House of Representatives had enacted a version of the Post-Employment Restrictions Act that would have prohibited non-competition agreements entirely. Following passage by the Utah House, the Act received extensive attention and dozens of witnesses testified in Utah Senate hearings regarding the bill. Following the hearings, the proposed Act was significantly changed and ultimately imposed merely a one-year time limit on such agreements and a provision allowing employees to recover attorneys’ fees and damages if a court determines the non-competition agreement is unenforceable.

Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act

The Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act was passed without significant attention from the business community, but it affords potentially substantial help to employers. While the statute provides a broad range of damages in the event of generic unauthorized access to a computer, such as by a hacker or in a divorce setting, it also contains provisions of interest to employers. The Act defines permission to access a computer “only to the extent or for the specific purpose the protected computer’s owner authorizes.” Utah Code § 6D-3-103(2). This language apparently was intended to create a state cause of action consistent with the broad construction of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as interpreted by the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, rather than the narrow construction as interpreted by the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. See Second Circuit Adopts Narrow Construction of Federal Computer Fraud Statute, Joins Circuit Split.

The Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act permits the recovery of actual damages, lost profits, economic damages, and injunctive relief. The Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act certainly will provide an important supplement to the protection available under the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Utah Code § 13-24-1, et seq.), see Utah Supreme Court Adopts Presumption of Harm in Trade Secret Litigation.

***

These two statutes highlight the importance of a broader trade secret protection approach that incorporates tailored and enforceable agreements, computer usage and access policies, and access restrictions. Such agreements and policies often will deter employees from engaging in inappropriate conduct. When deterrence fails, employers will have a mix of remedies available under common law for enforcement of restrictive covenants and under statutory law for computer abuse or theft of trade secrets.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer questions regarding this case and other workplace developments.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 18, 2019

A Renewed Attempt in Congress to Eliminate Non-Compete Agreements

November 18, 2019

A bipartisan bill aimed at generally banning non-compete agreements across the country has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.). The Workforce Mobility Act of 2019, which closely tracks the Democrat-led Workforce Mobility Act of 2018, is a stark contrast to the limited and more measured... Read More

November 13, 2019

Healthcare Employers’ Title VII Obligations in Harassment, Discrimination of Employees by Patients

November 13, 2019

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires healthcare employers to protect their medical staff and employees from harassment and discrimination and respond to any such behaviors swiftly and effectively, even if the actor is a patient, rather than a coworker or supervisor. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit... Read More

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More