On Monday, March 3, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) heard argument in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., regarding whether the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, G. L. c. 149, § 24L (the “MNAA”), applies to a forfeiture-for-solicitation provision contained in a termination agreement. The outcome of this appeal will clarify the bounds of the recently enacted statute and may have a significant impact on the landscape of restrictive covenants in Massachusetts on the whole.
This appeal challenges the Superior Court’s July 2024 ruling that a contract provision requiring Plaintiff-Appellee to forfeit severance benefits upon breach of non-solicitation obligations was subject to, and prohibited by, the MNAA because it does not satisfy the requirements for an enforceable noncompetition agreement under the statute. The MNAA requires valid covenants to be reasonable in scope of proscribed activities in relation to the interests protected, supported by mutually agreed upon consideration, and consonant with public policy. G. L. c. 149, § 24L.
Recent Updates
- The Courthouse Banned Your AI Glasses: What New York’s Smart Glasses Rule Means for Litigants and Counsel
- Fall 2026 SCOTUS Preview: Cases to Watch
- Same Trade Secret Dispute, Different Injunction Standards: PCC Airfoils v. Daugherty, et al., and Forum Choice in Ohio
- ABA and FWA: Compliance Best Practices
- Regulatory Scrutiny in ABA: What Providers Need to Know About Compliance Oversight