The Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee passed a measure Monday that seeks to protect employer trade secrets and confidential information from being shared by former employees.

St. Augustine Republican Sen. Tom Leek introduced the bill (SB 922). If passed, it would allow employers to enter into non-compete and Garden Leave agreements to protect their business interests.

“The current law in Florida on restrictive covenants is insufficient to protect industries in which employees’ routinely access sensitive business information,” Leek said. “Under current law, if an employee with access to such information leaves for somewhere employment with another company, an employer can go to court to seek to stop the former employee from using or disclosing the former employer sensitive business information.”

Leek noted that litigation could, however, be protracted, and added that by the time the court rules, the sensitive information may have already been disclosed.

“SB 922 carves out from an existing law … two types of commonly used employee agreements — non-compete agreements and Garden Leave agreements,” Leek said. “[The bill] establishes a more streamlined process than currently exists, designed to protect sensitive business information from disclosure by a current or former employee to another business at least until a court can decide whether the non-compete or Garden leave agreement has been violated.”

Leek noted that the bill would not only enhance protection for sensitive information but also narrows who it would apply to.

“The streamline process in SB 922 provides Florida employers and employees with enhanced protections for sensitive business information and provides greater certainty and transparency for all concerned,” Leek said. “The bill narrowly applies to covered non-compete and covered garden leave agreements. The agreement must be in writing … the employees afforded adequate notice, and the employee is advised in writing of the opportunity to seek counsel.”

Leek added that the bill outlines the mechanism to quickly enforce covered agreements via a preliminary injunction before any potential harm could done.

Jacksonville Democratic Sen. Tracie Davis asked why the agreements had been extended to four years.

“Most states deal with only having the non-competes to exist for one to two years. Why are we seeming like we’re strengthening our agreements to four years?” Davis asked.

In response, Leek said the extension is purely because of the information that needs to be protected.

“In Florida it’s a presumption of six months to two years … States similarly have those types of presumptions, so it’s not limited to a specific period of time,” Leek said. “And in this instance, we’re creating a presumption that the period of time should be four years, because of the type of information that we’re talking about.”

Multiple industries would be affected if the bill was to pass into law, according to Leek, particularly in finance.

“Florida is poised to be one of the finance capitals of the world, and if we want to attract those kinds of clean, high-paying jobs, you have to provide those businesses those protections on the investments they’re making,” Leek said.

Orlando Democratic Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith said he would be voting against the bill and noted that strengthening non-compete clauses would only help employers further restrict employees and stifle innovation.

Leek reiterated that the bill only applies when it comes to trade secrets and confidential information and added that no one would enforce it against a former employee if they had not shared any restricted information specified in the bill.

The bill was passed in a 6-3 vote and will now go to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Post Views: 0