Thursday, March 13, 2008

Glynn on the Race-to-the-Bottom with Noncompetes

Glynn Timothy Glynn (Seton Hall) has just posted on SSRN his article Interjurisdictional Competition in Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements: Regulatory Risk Management and the Race to the Bottom.  Here's the abstract:

This Article explores the possibility that one state could effectively eliminate the employment-law protections guaranteed by other states. If employers can incorporate by reference that state's law into their employment contracts, such an effective nullification could occur. An established trend in corporate law, this kind of regulatory risk management may soon endanger employee protections if policymakers fail to recognize and respond to the threat.

The phenomenon of states engaging in a regulatory race to the bottom in pursuit of business activity is familiar. Because firms take into account employment and labor standards (or the lack thereof) in deciding where to establish operations, states have incentives to maintain employer-friendly legal environments to attract business. While academics have long studied the potential effects of such territory-based competition on worker welfare, this Article considers another type of interjurisdictional competition that has received little attention in the employment-law literature. This variety is extraterritorial in nature: a state seeks to benefit by selling its law as a commodity to firms operating, in whole or in part, outside of its territory. Already common in corporate law, it is now emerging in employment contracting. By frustrating state-level employee protections, such competition could have dangerous implications for workers.

This Article examines why law-as-commodity competition is pervasive in the corporate area but, until recently, largely absent in employment contracting. To illustrate the changing dynamic, it then identifies the conditions favorable to competition in the enforcement of noncompetition agreements and considers other areas where this kind of competition could emerge.

How can states defend their workers and regulatory interests against the application of employer-friendly states' law within their borders? States have the power to reject contractual choice-of-law clauses, but this alone is not enough. Policymakers must also understand how firms and competing states might attempt to defeat local policy preferences through litigation techniques and aggressive judicial conduct. A state's failure to respond strategically to the rise of such a cooperative venture between firms and a competing state will result in creeping nullification of protections for local workers.

This is a great article on an important topic.  I've argued that an interjurisdictional race to the bottom may have explained the spread of the employment-at-will rule.  Glynn points out that such races could extend to noncompetes and beyond.


Employment Common Law, Scholarship | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glynn on the Race-to-the-Bottom with Noncompetes:


In many states noncompete agreements are sometimes nullified as being against public policy. Even in the complicated area of conflict of laws, I think it would be difficult to have an enforceable choice of law provisions. It would be made stronger with a choice of forum provision.

Posted by: Allan | Mar 17, 2008 8:33:15 AM

Post a comment