United States: Protecting Investments In People And IP While Avoiding Criminal Sanctions

Last Updated: August 17 2018
Article by Roxann E. Henry, Lisa M. Phelan and Eric A. Tate

"Employees leaving an organization might be replaced physically, however, their skill-sets and knowledge cannot be exactly replaced by the person replacing them... the skill of employees, account for 85% of a company's assets."2

"[W]e are going to aggressively protect our intellectual property. Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century."3

"Half of employees who left or lost their jobs in the last 12 months kept confidential corporate data, according to a global survey... 40% plan to use it in their new jobs."4

A company's intellectual property and employees are indisputably among its most important assets. Ironically, there is an inner tension between them because they also pose grave threats to each other. This article will examine recent initiatives by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division to prosecute (including potentially criminally) anti-poaching pacts between companies that improperly limit employee mobility, and also what employers can still lawfully do within the bounds of the regulations of the Antitrust Division and other laws to protect their people investments.


You've invested a lot in your employee base. At considerable cost, you've found the right people, developed and trained them, and disclosed to them some or all of your treasured IP. Now you want to keep some other company from reaping the benefits of your investment. And you know which other companies would be most interested in your employees and would like to protect their investments rather than engage in a bidding war over employees. STOP THERE! That last thought can lead to disastrous consequences. Even if you have no products that compete with another company, that other company can be your competitor for employees. And competition triggers the antitrust laws.

A change in the policy against no-poach (i.e., employee non-solicitation) agreements of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice surprised some executives and HR staff, who did not have antitrust on their radar. The Division followed its civil enforcement actions against nine prominent high-tech Silicon Valley companies5 by creating the Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (Guidance), along with the Federal Trade Commission, in October 2016.6

The Antitrust Division's continued focus is expanding further the depth and scope of the antitrust risk related to agreements about employees. Agreements not to compete can subject a company to criminal fines of up to $100 million or double the loss or gain from the agreement. Individuals involved in such agreements face a statutory maximum of 10 years in jail per agreement. The Guidance explicitly notes the availability of such criminal sanctions.

The antitrust laws also provide for victims to sue for treble damage and recover their attorneys' fees. Shareholder suits have challenged boards and executives that do not implement adequate compliance programs or misstate earnings reports due to antitrust violations.

The speed of follow-on consequences from government enforcement is swift. On April 3, 2018, the Antitrust Division announced a civil settlement regarding a no-poach agreement that had come to light in the context of a merger review.7 Only 13 days later the first of a number of follow-on antitrust treble damage class actions, was filed on behalf of the relevant employees. To give some sense of the expectation of the lawyers bringing these claims, $604 million in civil settlements from the earlier follow-on civil cases involving the Silicon Valley companies garnered two of the biggest payouts in class counsel attorneys' fees and costs in federal courts in California in the last eight years, according to Bloomberg Law's Class Action Settlement Tracker.8 Those fees present a significant incentive to bring class civil cases.

Recognizing that until recently many companies had not appreciated the consequences of no poach agreements, the Antitrust Division explained that it had chosen to proceed civilly, rather than criminally, in this recent matter because the conduct had ended prior to the October 2016 Guidance release. For conduct that continues past that time, the Antitrust Division may not be as generous and will target for criminal sanctions.

Most importantly, in announcing this settlement, the Antitrust Division reiterated, as its officials have done on numerous occasions since last fall, that "it intends to bring criminal, felony charges against culpable companies and individuals" and that the Antitrust Division has instituted "a broader investigation into naked agreements not to compete for employees."9


The Antitrust Division's current focus on anti-poaching agreements is consistent with a growing movement across the country to limit the use of non-competition agreements and restrictions on employee mobility. On April 26, 2018, Congress announced the introduction of a package of bills in both the House and Senate, that included the Workforce Mobility Act of 2018, H.R.5631 (WMA)10 and the End Employer Collusion Act, S.B. 2480 (EECA) and a couple of others.11

The WMA would make it unlawful for an employer to enter into a covenant not to compete with an employee and create a private right of action allowing a prevailing employee to collect damages, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The WMA contains a carve out that expressly permits agreements between an employer and employee barring the employee from disclosing trade secrets.

The EECA would be similar to the WMA, except the EECA would bar any agreement between two employers that prohibits or restricts one employer from soliciting or hiring another employer's employees or former employees. The EECA would offer the same remedies as the WMA but, in its current version, does not include any exceptions whatsoever.

In several states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington, similar bills have been proposed and are being considered as well. This is not the first time bills of this nature have been proposed in Congress or state legislatures, and the likelihood of any of these bills passing into law is, at best, uncertain. But whether or not they ultimately pass into law, they serve as further examples of a greater interest in lessening potential restrictions on employee mobility in the United States.

Massachusetts, which just passed sweeping changes to its laws on non-competition agreements, is a prime example. On July 31, the Massachusetts Legislature passed legislation12 for the first time codifying Massachusetts' law on non-competition agreements. If signed by the Governor, which is expected, the new law will be effective and apply to non-competition agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018. Going forward, therefore, non-compete agreements in Massachusetts will only be valid for 12 months after termination of employment subject to certain exceptions described in the bill. Employers will need to pay 50% of the employee's annualized base salary during the non-compete period. An employer will need to present the non-compete agreement to a new employee within ten (10) days of the employee starting work and specifically advise the employee of his or her right to consult a lawyer before signing. And non-competes will not be permissible for non-exempt employees or any employees who are terminated without cause or laid off, although such employees can still enter into non-competes as part of separation agreements. It remains to be seen what impact the new law has on business and innovation in Massachusetts. But the new Massachusetts legislation only confirms the business and societal interest and scrutiny of non-competition agreements.

Courts also appear to be applying greater scrutiny to non-competition agreements. For example, in Delaware, a state long known for having some of the most supportive laws favoring corporations in the nation, recent decisions by state courts may suggest a greater recognition for employee mobility considerations. In Ascension Insurance Holdings v. Alliant Insurance and Roberts Underwood, 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 19 (January 28, 2015), for instance, a Delaware company sought to enforce a non-competition provision in an agreement that it had signed with a California employee in which the parties had consented to Delaware venue and application of Delaware law for any disputes. The Delaware Chancery Court, however, declined to enforce the Delaware choice of law provision, holding that California had a greater interest in the action, and California public policy would be violated if Delaware law were applied under which the non-competition provision would be enforceable. More recently, another Delaware Chancery Court in EBP Lifestyle Brands Holdings v. Boulbain, 2017 Del. Ch. LEXIS 143 (August 4, 2017), refused to enforce against a California employee a non-competition provision in an agreement where the parties had similarly agreed that Delaware law would apply to disputes.

Many employers have been left to ask the question, can we lawfully do anything to protect our significant investments in our people who, by the way, often carry with them our most competitively sensitive IP? The answer is YES.

The vast majority of states in the United States still enforce against employees non-competition agreements that are reasonable in scope. Restrictive covenants with individual employees less than non-competition agreements, e.g., employee non-solicitation agreements, still appear to be universally enforceable. Employers everywhere are still free to require employees to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements to protect employers' most sensitive information. The UK concept of Garden Leave seems to be slowly making its way to United States.

Further, it is worth noting that even the Antitrust Division has recognized (as reflected in the excerpt from its 2011 Consent Decree with several high-tech companies in the Silicon Valley, https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/final-judgment-0) that there are situations where employee non-solicitation provisions are permissible, including when:

  1. Contained within existing and future employment or severance agreements with an employer;
  2. Reasonably necessary for mergers or acquisitions, consummated or unconsummated, investments, or divestitures, including due diligence related thereto;
  3. Reasonably necessary for contracts with consultants or recipients of consulting services, auditors, outsourcing vendors, recruiting agencies, or providers of temporary employees or contract workers;
  4. Reasonably necessary for the settlement or compromise of legal disputes; or 5. Reasonably necessary for (i) contracts with resellers or OEMs; (ii) contracts with providers or recipients of services other than those enumerated in paragraphs 1-4 above; or (iii) the function of a legitimate collaboration agreement, such as a joint development, technology integration, joint ventures, joint projects (including teaming agreements), and the shared use of facilities.

Terms such as "reasonably necessary" may leave room for interpretation, but to date, the Antitrust Division has not focused on challenging employee non-solicitation agreements in any of the above areas. Indeed, the Antitrust Division mentions in its October 2016 advisory guidance that no poaching agreements that are reasonably necessary to a larger legitimate collaboration between employers, including legitimate joint ventures, are not considered per se illegal under the antitrust laws.

In sum, while employers need to tread carefully lest they fall into the cross-hairs of the DOJ Antitrust Division, all is far from lost for employers increasingly concerned about how to retain their most prized people and IP assets.


  • Non-disclosure, non-compete, and non-solicitation agreements with individual employees are aspects of an effective IP protection program and are enforceable in most states.
  • But don't assume that courts will reflexively enforce restrictive covenants simply because an employer and employee agree to them in a contract or that you can avoid antitrust problems just because you explain to the affected employees what you are doing, even if they agree to it.
  • Beware that employee wages may be considered akin to prices for products and services, so entering into non-solicitation and similar agreements (particularly about setting wage rates) with other companies may violate antitrust law.
  • Look at your compliance program to be sure it covers HR issues; include HR personnel in the training and consider whether written materials need updating.
  • Continuing competition won't stem prosecution if there is an agreement on some phase of the process that is not ancillary and required for a legitimate, procompetitive purpose. For example, with agreements to avoid use of certain types of benefits or to set benefit levels, the companies may be vigorously competing for employees, but the conduct could still be criminal.
  • If you find a problem that was not terminated before October 2016, you may want to consider an application under the Antitrust Division's Leniency Policy, which provides for criminal amnesty for the first to disclose an antitrust violation (https://www.justice.gov/atr/leniency-program).


1 Roxann Henry ( https://www.mofo.com/people/roxann-henry.html) is a partner in the Global Antitrust Law Practice and is resident in the Washington, D.C. office of Morrison & Foerster. Roxann is the former chair of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, co-chaired the International Cartel Workshop this February, and, as lead counsel, won a rare corporate antitrust criminal "not guilty" verdict. With over 30 years of experience defending companies and individuals in antitrust government investigations and a Band One ranking for Cartels Nationally by Chambers USA, she also assists companies with antitrust compliance.

Lisa Phelan ( https://www.mofo.com/people/lisa-phelan.html) is a partner in the Global Antitrust Law Practice and is resident in the Washington, D.C. office of Morrison & Foerster*. Lisa is the former Chief of the National Criminal Enforcement and Washington Criminal I Sections of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). As Chief of the National Criminal Enforcement and Washington Criminal I Sections of the Antitrust Division, Lisa supervised and coordinated all investigative and litigation work on international and national criminal cartel cases. Prior to her appointment as Chief of National Criminal Enforcement, she served as a senior criminal litigator at the Antitrust Division, leading investigations and trials of multinational corporations and their executives for price-fixing and related crimes. Lisa has prosecuted more than 300 federal criminal cases, and oversaw dozens of jury trials throughout her tenure at the DOJ.

Eric Akira Tate ( https://www.mofo.com/people/eric-tate.html) co-chairs the Global Employment and Labor Practice and is resident in the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster. Eric is an expert in the area of trade secrets and employee mobility, and litigates such disputes across the country. Eric led the Morrison team assisting Uber in its acquisition of autonomous vehicle start-up, Ottomotto, and helped lead the team that defended Uber in the lawsuit filed by Waymo (Google) over the acquisition, which settled in the middle of trial in February 2018. Eric co chairs the Covenants Not to Compete and Trade Secrets Subcommittee of the ABA's Labor & Employment Section, and serves on the Board of Review for the industryleading treatises: Trade Secrets: A State-by-State Survey; Covenants Not to Compete; Employee Duty of Loyalty; and Tortious Interference in the Employment Context.

2 https://www.educba.com/employee-most-valuable-intangible-assets/.

3 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/dag/legacy/2010/08/23/intellectual-propertyspotlight.pdf.

4 https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/employees-dont-think-twice-about-stealing/.

5 U.S. v. eBay, Inc.: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-ebay-inc; U.S. v. Lucasfilm Ltd.: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-lucasfilm-ltd; U.S. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-adobe-systems-inc-et-al.

6 https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/903511/download. The Guidance provides some history on enforcement, details the law and its application, and provides tips to avoid problems.

7 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-knorr-and-wabtec-terminateunlawful-agreements-not-compete.

8 http://antitrust.bna.com/atrc/.

9 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-knorr-and-wabtec-terminateunlawful-agreements-not-compete.

10 https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5631/BILLS-115hr5631ih.xml.

11 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2480/text.

12 https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H4868.pdf.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions