In its rollout of the Executive Order, the White House specifically highlighted the seriousness with which it is pursuing changes to non-compete agreements. In a fact sheet provided with the Executive Order, the White House explained that the purpose of Executive Order 14036 was to “[m]ake it easier to change jobs and help raise wages by banning or limiting non-compete agreements and unnecessary, cumbersome occupational licensing requirements that impede economic mobility.” The White House described non-competes as “one way companies stifle competition” and stated that “roughly half of private-sector businesses require at least some employees to enter non-compete agreements, affecting some 36 to 60 million workers.”
Despite these strong policy statements, the Executive Order does not have any immediate impact on non-compete agreements. Currently, non-competes are regulated only at the state level through statutes and common law. As recently as January 2021, for example, the District of Columbia enacted a near-total ban on non-compete agreements. Other states, such as Maryland, have imposed more limited bans on non-competes for workers earning less than $15 an hour. Although multiple bills relating to non-competes have been introduced at the federal level over the years, none have gained momentum thus far.
It is not known at this time when the FTC will begin its rulemaking process and to what extent it will seek to ban or curtail the use of non-compete agreements. Recently-installed FTC Chair Lina M. Khan is a noted advocate for aggressively using the FTC’s rulemaking process, and the agency can be expected to take action in response to the Executive Order. However, the agency would also face significant constitutional challenges on the basis that it is overstepping its authority.
