Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Employment Law Spotlight

NLRB General Counsel Advises That Employer’s Noncompete and Confidentiality Agreement is Not an Unfair Labor Practice

Blockchain Monitor

Blockchain Monitor - Planet earth in outer space with network connection and sunlight.

Weekly Blockchain Blog -July 13, 2026

BakerHostetler adds acclaimed antitrust leader and commercial litigation attorney Kenneth Racowski as partner in Philadelphia

Amy Ralph Mudge Co-Chairs, Sarah La Voi Moderates Panel at 2nd Annual Working with Influencers Virtual Conference

core/heading

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) Division of Advice recently recommended that a Regional Office dismiss an unfair labor practice charge premised on the existence of employee noncompetes.

core/list-item

This recommendation of dismissal follows the NLRB’s current view on noncompetes and is a further rebuke of the NLRB’s interpretation of noncompetes under the prior General Counsel.

With the NLRB still on the sideline for noncompete regulation, the patchwork of state law obligations will continue to expand and dominate employers’ compliance requirements.

core/list

On June 26, the NLRB’s Division of Advice (Division) released a memorandum in <a href="https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45842ddb7b">Biotricity, Inc., Case 08-CA-326334</a>, addressing whether an employer’s noncompete agreement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act).

core/paragraph

The Division held, in line with then-Acting <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/trumps-valentine-to-employers-the-nlrbs-acting-general-counsel-undoes-his-predecessors-agenda/">General Counsel William B. Cowen’s Feb. 14, 2025 General Counsel Memorandum</a>, that “[u]nder current law, an employer does not violate the Act by maintaining non-compete provisions. . . . The General Counsel is of the view that non-compete agreements do not as a general matter impact employees’ rights under Section 7. Accordingly, the non-compete language within the Non-Compete Agreement does not violate Section 8(a)(1).”

The Division also found that the confidentiality obligation, although broad, was lawful. Specifically, the Division stated that claiming “all information not generally known to the public” is confidential is broad but that the enumerated examples, including “payroll information, . . . personnel information, [and] employee lists,” plus “dozens of other examples of purely business-related types of information” “clearly explains the Employer’s strong confidentiality interests in the highly competitive medical-technology industry.” The Division applied basic logic to conclude that “[v]iewed through this lens, employees would reasonably understand that the confidentiality provision restricts them from sharing confidential information with competitors, not Section 7-protected communications with fellow employees.”

Notably, the Division did not simply rubber-stamp Biotricity’s entire agreement. Rather, it found that certain unidentified “portions of the non-solicitation, inducement-of-third-parties, and non-disparagement clauses are arguably unlawful.” However, it found that those provisions were moot in the current case because the employer did not seek to enforce them, and thus the allegations related to them were “dismissed on noneffectuation grounds.”

The ‘Biotricity’Dispute

Biotricity involved two former employees who signed six-month noncompete agreements restricting their ability to work for competitors and their use of confidential information, along with nonsolicitation and nondisparagement provisions.

After the employees joined a competitor, Biotricity sued to enforce the agreements, and the employees responded by filing unfair labor practice charges alleging the noncompete agreement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

A Shift Away from Prior NLRB Guidance

During the Biden administration, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo took the position, reflected in <a href="https://nlrbresearch.com/pdfs/09031d4583a87168.pdf">GC 23-08</a>, that certain restrictive covenants and workplace agreements could unlawfully restrain employees’ Section 7 rights by discouraging protected activity, including seeking better working conditions, organizing or acting together with co-workers.

That position formally shifted on Feb. 14, 2025, when Cowen issued GC 25-05, which rescinded several of Abruzzo’s memoranda, including GC 23-08. The Biotricity Advice Memorandum reflects this change in interpretation.

What ‘Biotricity’ Means for Employers

The Biotricity memorandum, although not binding on the Board, is a further signal that the Board is moving away from the prior administration’s expansive view that noncompete obligations generally interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights. However, even if lawful under the Act, employers must still ensure that their noncompete, confidentiality, and other restrictive covenants comply with state law, which is quickly evolving into a further patchwork of disjointed and technical obligations across the country.

Related Services

Featured Insights