Colorado Criminalizes Violations of Statute on Noncompete Agreements

February 17, 2022 Advisory

In last year’s legislative session, the Colorado legislature enacted Senate Bill 21-271, a sweeping act reforming sentencing provisions related to misdemeanors and petty offenses. Tucked away in the text of this 304-page bill is a five-line provision adding language to the Noncompete Act, C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4) (the Noncompete Act) that would criminalize violations of this Act. This provision, though short, has potentially enormous consequences for Colorado employers.

The Noncompete Act makes it “unlawful to use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place he sees fit.” Under Colorado law, contract provisions concerning nonsolicitation of customers and employees are also considered to be noncompete agreements and are covered by this Act. In addition, the Noncompete Act applies to independent contractors. Effective March 1, 2022, violations of the amended Noncompete Act will constitute “a class 2 misdemeanor.” In Colorado, a class 2 misdemeanor is punishable by up to 120 days imprisonment and/or a fine of $750.

This raises the stakes for employers seeking to enforce noncompetition agreements that are subject to Colorado law. It also has important implications for employees who are parties to such agreements, as well as other companies trying to hire such employees.

What restrictions does Colorado law place on noncompetition agreements?

Even before the amendment, noncompete agreements in Colorado were unenforceable under the Noncompete Act, unless such agreements fit within one of a few limited statutory exceptions: (1) contracts for the purchase and sale of a business, (2) contracts for the protection of trade secrets; (3) contracts for the recovery of training expenses for employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years, and (4) contracts with executive and management personnel and officers, or the personnel or staff of executives and management personnel.

What are the implications of the recent amendment?

Beginning March 1, 2022, businesses seeking to enforce restrictive covenants in Colorado must face not only the possibility that their covenants will be unenforceable if they fail to satisfy one or more of the Noncompete Act’s exceptions, but also the possibility of a criminal penalty.

Criminalizing the Noncompete Act makes at least one typical business tactic problematic. It is a fairly common practice for employers to send cease-and-desist letters to their former employees reminding them of their post-employment noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements, even when they know that the basis for enforcing these agreements lacks factual and/or legal support. This practice often has the effect of deterring departing employees from pursuing work that may violate restrictive covenants entered with a prior employer. Under the prior version of the Noncompete Act, businesses threatening to enforce a noncompete clause that was likely unenforceable under Colorado law faced no material consequences. It remains to be seen how Colorado courts will regard cease-and-desist letters sent with respect to restrictive covenants that are later deemed unenforceable.

Similarly, it is also unclear how (or if) criminal prosecutions would be pursued against a party that has violated the Noncompete Act. For example, it is not clear whether (or under what circumstances) local law enforcement and prosecutors would be inclined to pursue charges under this law.

In light of these uncertainties, employers should be cautious when attempting to enforce (or threatening to enforce) noncompetition provisions in Colorado. Employers whose employment agreements are subject to Colorado law and include noncompetition or nonsolicitation provisions should ensure that their agreements conform with the requirements of the Noncompete Act. For example, employers should identify the specific statutory exemption permitting enforcement of the restrictive covenants in their employee agreements and tailor the language of those restrictive covenants to fit squarely within one of the statutory exceptions to the Noncompete Act’s prohibitions. Employers should also consider whether their attempt to enforce a noncompetition provision could be construed as being unlawful, if the noncompetition provision is likely unenforceable under the Noncompete Act.

Additionally, legal counsel for a former employee who is subject to a noncompetition or nonsolicitation clause should be cautious when responding to a cease-and-desist letter. Under Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 4.5(a), a lawyer cannot threaten criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Thus, counsel for a former employee should refrain from making any such threat when responding to cease-and-desist letters. A party may contact law enforcement, or a court may refer a potential violation of the Noncompete Act to law enforcement, but an attorney should not threaten criminal prosecution in responding to a cease-and-desist letter.

Please contact Armstrong Teasdale LLP’s experienced team of attorneys for additional information or assistance on this update, training, or other litigation avoidance best practices.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • 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
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 1250
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.
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
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