Thought Leadership

Changes to Colorado’s Noncompete Law

May 26, 2022 Advisory

With the craze of summer vacations and kids going back to school, Colorado employers could understandably overlook a new and significant change to noncompete law, which is expected to take effect on Aug. 9, 2022. This new law (House Bill 22-1317) applies to all Colorado employers and any business that employs a person who primarily lives or works in Colorado. These changes will apply to any agreement entered into or renewed after the law becomes effective (e.g., older agreements will be grandfathered in under the old noncompete law).

The default in Colorado remains that noncompetition agreements are unenforceable. Companies need to show that a certain exception applies in order for the restrictive covenant to be valid. To that point, the first significant change to the new noncompete law is that it removes the exception for executives and management personnel and their professional staff. Instead, the new law would allow noncompete agreements for those employees who are “highly compensated” (the current threshold amount is $101,250). Thus, after Aug. 9, for a noncompete agreement to be enforceable, it would need to be with a “highly compensated” employee, for the protection of trade secrets, and no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.

This new law also limits nonsolicitation agreements and places a minimum compensation to make them enforceable. Specifically, nonsolicitation agreements will be invalid unless the worker makes no less than 60% of the “highly compensated” amount (e.g., currently $60,750). Additionally, the employer must show that the restrictive covenant is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.

Confidentiality Agreements are Limited. Under the new law, a reasonable confidentiality provision that is relevant to a company’s business will be permitted, but only if the nondisclosure agreement does not protect information that arises from the worker’s general training, knowledge, skill or experience, whether gained on the job or otherwise, information that is readily ascertainable to the public, or information that a worker otherwise has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct. The standard that courts will use to determine the reasonableness of a confidentiality agreement will most likely be the subject of scrutiny and debate. Until there is more published guidance, employers are encouraged to reach out to legal counsel with questions about this issue.

Quick Facts About HB 22-1317 that Employers and Employees Should Consider:

  • New procedural requirements make a covenant not to compete that is otherwise permissible void unless notice of the covenant not to compete, and its terms, are provided within certain timeframes. Notice to prospective employees and job candidates must be given before the candidate accepts employment. Notice to current employees must occur at least 14 days before the agreement will become effective, or 14 days before any additional compensation/consideration becomes effective.
  • The Long Arm of the Law. If a worker primarily lives or works in Colorado, the restrictive covenant must be governed by Colorado law and can only be enforced in Colorado. Employers are encouraged to carefully review all forum and venue provisions of their agreements before the law goes into effect in August, to ensure that all renewals contain proper forum provisions.
  • HB 22-1317 Includes Civil and Criminal Penalties for Employers. An employer who presents a worker or prospective worker a noncompetition agreement that is void as a term or condition of their employment, or who enters into a void noncompetition agreement, or who attempts to enforce a void noncompetition agreement can be liable for actual damages and a penalty of $5,000 per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct. In addition, a court may award injunctive relief, and the worker or prospective worker may recover actual damages, reasonable costs and attorney fees in any private action brought under the law. However, penalties may be reduced in the court’s discretion if the employer was acting in good faith, and if the court determines that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the employer’s act was not a violation of the law. The new law confirms that criminal penalties (a Class 2 misdemeanor) are still possible for anyone who tries to “use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation…” However, it is still unclear what would constitute a “threat” in what could become an adversarial proceeding.  

Employers should review existing agreements containing covenants not to compete, agreements not to solicit customers, and confidentiality clauses to determine whether they comply with Colorado’s new law. Additionally, employers should also carefully review internal policies and practices, forms and deadlines for eliciting such agreements, and make sure they comply with the new statute.

Armstrong Teasdale’s Employment and Labor lawyers have significant experience advising individuals and businesses of all sizes on compliance with noncompete laws in various states. Please contact our team for additional information on proactive guidance specific to your employment situation or the needs of your organization.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware