WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 269

An Act amending the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, further providing for drug overdose medication.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joe Ciresi and 23 co-sponsors

Prohibits non-compete agreements for employees earning under $75,000, boosting mobility and competition, with enforcement by the AG and civil remedies.

Referred to Health & Human Services
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 269

Summary — HB 269: Workforce Freedom and Protection Act

Status: Passed 1st Reading (referred to Commerce & Economic Development; if favorable, Judiciary 2; then Rules)
Introduced: Session 2025 (filed and first read in March 2025)
Short title: Workforce Freedom and Protection Act

Purpose

To remove barriers to job mobility and promote competition in the labor market by (1) banning certain restrictive employment agreements, (2) repealing statutory restrictions on labor organizing and collective bargaining, and (3) directing a Legislative Research Commission (LRC) study to identify and recommend reforms to occupational licensing requirements.

Key provisions

  • Repeal of existing restrictions on labor organizing and collective bargaining:

    • Articles 10 and 12 of Chapter 95 of the General Statutes are repealed (text in the bill describes this as removing restrictions on labor organizing and collective bargaining).

  • Ban on non-compete agreements for most workers:

    • Creates Article 24 (Workplace Freedom) in Chapter 95 and establishes § 95‑275.
    • Prohibits employers from entering into, requiring, enforcing, or threatening to enforce non‑compete agreements with employees who earn less than $75,000 per year.
    • Defines “non‑compete agreement” (time, geographic, or activity-based post‑employment restrictions) and “employee” (workers with pay under $75,000).
    • Prohibits certain franchise-related restrictions on employee movement.

  • Remedies and enforcement:

    • Any person injured by a violation may bring a civil action to recover actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and other appropriate relief.
    • The Attorney General is authorized to investigate and bring enforcement actions.

  • Choice-of-law / venue protection:

    • Prohibits employers from requiring employees who primarily reside or work in North Carolina to litigate claims arising in NC outside the State or to waive protection of NC law.

  • Legislative Research Commission (LRC) study of occupational licensing:

    • Charges the LRC with a comprehensive review of State-issued occupational licenses to identify unnecessary or overly restrictive requirements.
    • Study scope includes: public‑safety rationale, necessity and less‑restrictive alternatives (e.g., certification, registration), economic impacts on access and competition, national comparisons, regulatory overlap, and outcomes/accountability.
    • Priority industries: construction trades, cosmetology, health‑related professions, personal care services, and occupations that disproportionately impede small business formation or workforce entry.
    • Quantitative flags: licensing rules producing ≥10% consumer price increases or ≥15% reductions in competition (over a three‑year period) should be marked for potential change.
    • The LRC is directed to engage stakeholders and recommend repeal or modification where licensing imposes significant barriers without proportional public‑safety benefits.

Who is affected

  • Employees in North Carolina earning less than $75,000/year (gain protection from non‑competes).
  • Employers and franchisors statewide (prohibited from using or enforcing certain agreements).
  • Occupational licensing boards, regulated professions, and prospective entrants into licensed fields (subject to LRC review and potential reform).
  • Consumers and small businesses may be indirectly affected by changes in licensing and market competition.

Effective dates / procedural notes

  • The non‑compete ban (Section 3.1(b)) takes effect July 1, 2025 and applies to agreements entered on or after that date; prior agreements are not automatically invalidated but enforcement after the effective date must comply with the new statute.
  • The bill authorizes the LRC study but the excerpt does not specify a firm deadline for completion; implementation would follow the usual legislative and administrative processes.
  • Began moving through committee referral process (Commerce & Economic Development → Judiciary → Rules) after first reading.

Potential impacts (summary)

  • Increases worker mobility and bargaining power for lower‑ and middle‑income workers.
  • Potential reduction in employer ability to restrict post‑employment competition and inter‑employer hiring practices.
  • Could prompt litigation to test scope and constitutionality of provisions and to interpret interactions with prior contracts.
  • LRC study may produce recommendations that reduce licensing burdens, potentially lowering costs and expanding workforce entry in targeted sectors.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.