.

Defense Digest

The Federal Trade Commission’s Proposed Evisceration of Non-Compete Agreements – What the Proposed Rule Means for Employers

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2023

March 1, 2023

by Lee C. Durivage

Key Points:

  • The Federal Trade Commission is proposing to bar virtually all non-compete agreements between employees and employers.
  • The FTC’s proposed rule would not only prohibit non-compete agreements moving forward, but it would affirmatively require employers to rescind existing agreements and provide notice to employees that they have been rescinded.
  • The FTC’s proposed rule is the next step in the FTC’s current policy of investigating employers who utilize restrictive covenant agreements (including non-compete and non-solicitation agreements) and then subjecting those employers to civil penalties and the attorneys’ fees incurred in defending an action brought by the federal government.

In January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a Rule that would prohibit employers from utilizing most non-compete agreements with its employees. In the FTC’s view, this Rule reflects the FTC’s current enforcement policies and belief that “by suppressing labor mobility, non-compete clauses have negatively affected competition,” and “allow[ed] serious anticompetitive harm to labor, product, and service markets to go unchecked.”

In support of these findings, the FTC estimated that approximately one in five American workers (or approximately 30 million workers) are currently bound by non-compete clauses. In proposing its Rule, the FTC reviewed the current legal landscape of non-compete agreements at the state level, confirming that three states have barred non-compete agreements altogether, 11 states (and the District of Columbia) have barred non-compete agreements based on the salary level of the employee involved, and a number of other states have barred or limited the enforcement of non-complete agreements in certain specified occupations. In the FTC’s view, non-compete agreements negatively impact the wages of employees and harm the economy as a whole.

Ultimately, the proposed Rule states that “it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of [the Federal Trade Commission Act]—for an employer to enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; maintain with a worker a non-compete clause; or, under certain circumstances, represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.” The FTC also noted in its notice of proposed rulemaking that certain other restrictive covenant agreements with employees, namely, confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements, may be “de facto” non-compete agreements. In addition to barring non-compete agreements moving forward, the Rule would require employees to affirmatively rescind existing non-compete agreements with its employees. Failure to comply with these provisions would subject employers to penalties and investigatory action by the FTC.

The notice of proposed rulemaking requests comments on a variety of topics, including whether there is (or should be) a difference in non-compete agreements with senior executives versus other lower level employees. Either way, the FTC indicated that these type of agreements should be prohibited for virtually all employees.

While the proposed Rule is currently awaiting public comment and the enforcement period will not be applicable until late 2023 (at the earliest), proponents for and those against the rule are already gearing up for the legal challenges that would inevitably be filed to the Rule. Of course, even with those anticipated legal challenges, employers should be prepared to review their existing agreements to determine whether they would (a) be subject to this Rule and (b) be subject to other types of enforcement by the FTC. Indeed, even without this Rule in place, the FTC has been clear in its policy statements that non-compete agreements and other types of restrictive covenants constitute an unfair method of competition and violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, and they have routinely taken action to bar the enforcement of these restrictive covenants against employees. This Rule would have no impact on the FTC’s continued investigation of employers who utilize non-compete agreements.

As it stands now, employers should continue to monitor the rulemaking process and be prepared to rescind non-compete agreements if this Rule takes effect. In addition, considering the current makeup of the FTC and its policy initiatives, employers should consult with legal counsel to determine whether there is a risk of potential exposure with respect to their current employment agreements. Employers will need to justify the scope and business necessity of these agreements, including standard non-solicitation, non-poaching, and confidentiality agreements, to avoid the perception that these agreements will impair a former employee’s ability to obtain a new position. Failure to do so now may lead to an enforcement action by the FTC, with attendant penalties and attorney’s fees.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.