Massachusetts is moving toward one of the most significant overhauls to its noncompete framework, balancing worker mobility with economic growth incentives for companies operating in the Commonwealth.

Attorney Philip Gordon delivered formal testimony before Massachusetts Senators and House Representatives addressing the impact and intent of the proposed noncompete modernization bill.

The Massachusetts Senate passed the legislation by 32 votes to 7, signaling strong legislative support for narrowing enforcement conditions and strengthening rights for employees while maintaining structured protections for eligible companies.

The proposed changes to noncompete laws in Massachusetts would ban those clauses for workers classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Exempt employees – typically, professionals, administrators or executives – would continue to be subject to noncompete clauses, but with more predictable results. 

Noncompetes now would last only for six months, and they would be valid only if limited to a predefined geographic region and specific employment duties. Thus, if an employee finds new employment after six months, in a different area, or with different responsibilities, they would be allowed to begin working immediately.

Other major changes include a requirement that advance notice of any noncompete be provided to individuals prior to employment, and that the clauses themselves be clear and specific.

Click here to view the latest version of Massachusetts Noncompete bill.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

In Gordon’s discussion with Emily Yoffe (the Dear Prudence author), he noted that the assistant professor should focus on the student first and find out her needs.  She might need significant support:  emotional, physical, legal and academic.

Core Issues Raised in the Conversation

According to the legal commentary:

• Campus sexual misconduct involves layered support needs – emotional, academic, legal, and safety-based.
• Student wellbeing must be prioritized before process optics.
• Confidential counsel from experienced employment lawyers can reduce institutional bias risks.
• School administrators may not offer legally privileged structuring advice when brand risk competes with duty to complain.
• Title IX legal frameworks often require specialized interpretation beyond internal HR consistency tests.

Why Employment Law Counsel Has a Strategic Advantage

Philip Gordon emphasized that employment lawyers:

• Can offer confidential advice protected by privilege.
• Provide an ally not driven by institutional preservation incentives.
• Understand classification and contract-based retaliation risks.
• Have experience navigating internal vs external reporting consequences similar across workplaces and universities.

You can read the full Slate article here. Philip is an experienced lawyer in Title IX matters and is currently representing Dr. Kimberly Theidon, in a Title IX case against Harvard University. To learn more about Title IX click here or contact us today.

He also recommended that the assistant professor speak with an attorney well versed in Title IX. Employment lawyers have the advantage of being in a position to provide confidential advice, without the competing motives of a school administrator who may be more concerned with maintaining the school’s reputation.

Philip Gordon was interviewed by the Boston Herald for legal perspective following the high-level firings at the Massachusetts-based grocery chain, Market Basket.

The board of directors controlled by Arthur S. Demoulas voted to terminate his cousin, CEO Arthur T. Demoulas, along with several senior professional employees. The leadership shake-up immediately prompted internal unrest, including multiple resignations made in protest and public expressions of worker solidarity.

Family Business Conflict Meets Employment Law Risk

Philip Gordon observed that corporate upheavals rooted in family control battles frequently carry downstream legal consequences especially when personnel decisions become entangled with workplace power struggles, retaliatory behavior, or forced exits.

He also noted that the Demoulas family has a long history of internal legal disputes, emphasizing that this incident is not an isolated tension point. When executive firings lead to mass resignations or protest-motivated departures, additional legal pathways can open, including:

• Constructive discharge claims
• Retaliation for protected protest activity
• Breach of implied employment agreements
• Violation of Massachusetts employment retaliation laws
• Interference with worker rights under state or federal labor statutes

Massachusetts employment retaliation laws protect employees at all levels, including service staff, corporate professionals, and senior executives, when adverse action is influenced by complaints, protest activity, or rights-based advocacy.

In volatile internal conflicts, employers must ensure that termination decisions are grounded in legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons to withstand legal scrutiny.

Philip noted that this is far from the first family argument in the Demoulas family, whose company is based in Massachusetts and whose litigation is longstanding.

To read the article, click here. Gordon Law Group team of professionals has experience representing all employees, from service workers to CEOs.

If you would like to learn more about the case or employment laws in Massachusetts, contact us today.