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 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

October 8, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Case on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements for Transportation Workers

October 8, 2018

On October 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. While the case turns on what may appear to be a simple question of statutory interpretation, the outcome could have profound consequences for employers throughout the transportation industry, for hundreds of thousands of independent... Read More

October 8, 2018

Kentucky Supreme Court Holds Employers May Not Require Arbitration Agreements as a Condition of Employment

October 8, 2018

On September 27, 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued its opinion in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder, No. 2017-SC-000277-DG, and held that Kentucky employers may not require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon KRS... Read More

October 3, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case

October 3, 2018

Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions? Collin O’Connor Udell of Jackson Lewis attended the U.S. Supreme Court argument held on October 1, 2018, in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587. She wrote the... Read More