The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to ban non-compete clauses for employees whose total compensation is less than $150,000 a year. The bill heading to the mayor’s desk for review is the second time in under two years that lawmakers sought to restrict non-competes, or clauses in employment contracts that prevent employees from working at a competitor or operating their own business during or after their current position. Depending on who you ask, the bill is either described as a watered-down version of the previous ban or a compromise.
D.C. is somewhat exceptional in that only a few states regulate non-compete clauses. Neighboring Maryland only prohibits the use of non-competes for employees who earn $15 per hour, while Virginia has no ban. Studies increasingly show that non-competes harm workers by limiting job mobility, as well as limits their opportunities for higher pay.
In December 2020, councilmembers unanimously passed a blanket ban on non-compete clauses, and the mayor signed the measure into law. But the law never took effect in part because enforcement wasn’t funded. Over the last year and a half, various groups (from the D.C. Chamber of Commerce to the Washington Nationals) took advantage of the delay in implementation and lobbied lawmakers, calling for carve-outs so employers could use non-competes in certain circumstances. They found a sympathetic ear with Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto, who’s amendment ultimately prevailed.
Here’s what the revised non-compete...
A hotel on one the A127 has issued a statement after what it described as "false and misleading" claims were shared on social media. The Palms Hotel, on Southend Arterial Road (A127) in Hornchurch...