WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1336

Relates to enacting the "N.Y. state digital equity plan act"

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Kevin Parker

Massachusetts bans noncompete agreements, making them void and unenforceable starting Jan 1, 2026, boosting worker mobility and pushing employers to rely on NDAs and trade secrets.

REFERRED TO CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES AND COMMISSIONS
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1336

Bill Summary — S.1336 (Massachusetts)

An Act relative to banning noncompetition agreements in the Commonwealth

Note on source materials: the materials supplied include conflicting metadata (references to a "N.Y. state digital equity plan act" and a list of federal senators). The bill text and docket entries provided are for Massachusetts Senate Bill No. 1336 (filed Jan. 15, 2025), presented by Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, which would ban noncompetition agreements. This summary focuses on the bill text and legislative actions as provided.

Main purpose

To eliminate the enforceability of employee noncompetition agreements in Massachusetts by amending Section 24L of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws so that, effective January 1, 2026, such agreements are “void and unenforceable.”

Key provision

  • Amends Section 24L of Chapter 149 (as it appears in the 2022 Official Edition) by adding the following sentence:
    • “Effective January 1, 2026, noncompetition agreements, as defined in this section, shall be void and unenforceable.”
  • The bill does not itself restate the definition of “noncompetition agreement” but references the definition that appears in Section 24L.

Who would be affected

  • Employees and prospective employees in Massachusetts: existing and future noncompetition covenants would no longer be legally enforceable starting Jan. 1, 2026.
  • Employers operating in Massachusetts: loss of the ability to enforce noncompetition clauses as a means of restricting former employees’ post-employment activities.
  • Startups and businesses hiring talent: likely increase in worker mobility and hiring competition.
  • Service providers, contractors and gig workers to the extent their contracts currently contain noncompetition language that would fall under Section 24L’s definition.

Likely practical effects

  • Increased employee mobility and ability to change employers or start new ventures without fear of court-enforced noncompetes.
  • Employers may shift to alternative protections such as:
    • Non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements (NDAs) and trade secret law enforcement;
    • Non-solicitation clauses (which may be treated differently under existing law, depending on statutory language and case law);
    • stronger internal security and retention strategies (compensation, equity, counteroffers).
  • Potential litigation and litigation strategy shifts over whether clauses are classified as “noncompetition” versus other restrictive covenants and over the scope of Section 24L’s definitions and exceptions (if any are present in the statutory text).

Effective date and procedural status (as provided)

  • Effective date in text: January 1, 2026.
  • Legislative timeline (selected entries from docket):
    • Filed / Presented: Jan. 15, 2025 (Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen)
    • Read twice and referred to committee; multiple committee referrals recorded (Labor & Workforce Development; Corporations, Authorities and Commissions).
    • Passed Senate: May 19, 2025; delivered to the House/Assembly and referred to Corporations, Authorities and Commissions.
    • Hearings scheduled/rescheduled for Nov. 17, 2025 (public and virtual hearing listings appear in the docket).
  • Related measures listed: SD 895 (replaces), S 1693 (prior session), A 4102 (companion).

Notes and uncertainties

  • The bill text supplied is a single-sentence amendment that relies on the existing statutory definition of “noncompetition agreement” in Section 24L. Readers should consult the current Section 24L for the full statutory definition and any existing exceptions or transitional provisions.
  • The provided docket and sponsor information contains inconsistencies (e.g., out-of-state and federal names). The primary Massachusetts sponsor listed in the bill filing is Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen.
  • Because the amendment simply declares noncompetition agreements void and unenforceable, ancillary questions (grandfathering of past agreements, interaction with confidentiality/trade secret protections, and treatment of multi-jurisdictional agreements) may require judicial or legislative clarification.

If you want, I can:
- Pull up the current text of Section 24L to show the statutory definition of “noncompetition agreement,” or
- Draft a short memo on likely employer responses and recommended contract language alternatives.

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

Sign in to ask a question.