Garrison Law partner Josh Goodbaum was recently quoted in a Hartford Business Journal article about non-compete agreements and the fine line between protecting proprietary information and suppressing competition.
The article, titled “Dogged Pursuit: CT Animal Behaviorist Alleges Corporate Espionage in Trade Secrets Dispute,” covers an ongoing Connecticut federal court lawsuit between Kansas City-based business Beyond the Dog and its former employee Allyson Salzer.
After her employment ended, Ms. Salzer moved to Connecticut and launched her own company, Canine Behavioral Blueprints. Approximately one year later, Beyond the Dog sued her, alleging breaches of a non-compete agreement and misappropriation of proprietary information. In response, Ms. Salzer filed a counterclaim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, asserting claims of deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, tortious interference, and defamation.
Analyzing whether Ms. Salzer’s non-compete served a legitimate purpose to protect intellectual property or instead suppressed competition, Josh Goodbaum shared that, “The application of antitrust and anticompetition law to noncompetes is very much a live debate. Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission took the position that the vast majority of — if not all — noncompetes were anticompetitive and therefore invalid. The Trump FTC seems to be more forgiving of at least some noncompetes, but it appears to want to take action in this area, especially where an employer imposes its noncompetes on all of its employees regardless of seniority or context.”
Read the full article here.