On July 3, 2025, the law of Florida “came up with the opportunities, investments, confidentiality and economic growth (” Choice act “). The Choice Act creates new categories of restrictive alliances and Ebnet an easier way for employers to show highly paid employees or contractors who violate their restrictive alliances.
Who and what covers the selection?
The selection law only applies to “muted employees”, who is defined as every employee or an individual contractor who is a salary of more than twice as high as the annual medium wages of the district, in which the muted employer has its main location (without a person who was classified as “health care” according to Florida Statutes, ยง 456.001). The selection law defines the “annual mean” as the latest annual mean, which is calculated by the US Ministry of Health for Labor Statistics or its successor calculation for all professions in this state.
For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the annual medium wages for Tallahassee, Florida (the only municipality in Leon County, Florida) is $ 58,230 and $ 62,990 for Jacksonville, Florida (the only community in Duval County, Florida). If an “insured employer”, which is an organization or person who includes a covered employee, does not have his main office in the state of Florida, the salary comparison of the covered employee is carried out on the basis of the district in which the employee lives.
The Selection Act of Florida makes it clear that garden vacation agreements and covered non -competitive agreements, both forms of restrictive agreements, are enforced in Florida. The Choice Act applies to covered agreements in which a muted employee maintains a primary workplace in Florida, regardless of the applicable provisions of legal rights. It also applies to covered agreements with a covered employer whose main headquarters are in Florida and which agreement expressly rules for Florida's laws.
A covered garden vacation contract enables the employers to arrange for up to 4 years of prerequisite for the employee of a covered employee before ending their employment relationship with a covered employer. The covered employee does not have to work during the termination of the termination, and the employed employer must keep the employee during the notice period and meet the salary and services of the employee to pay the employee in the last month before the start of the notice period. However, if the covered employee involves gross misalignment against the covered employer, the muted employer can reduce the salary or the services of the employee or take other appropriate measures without being seen as a violation of the agreement on garden vacation. The covered employee is not obliged to provide services for the covered employer after the first 90 days of the termination rate, which creates a de -facto -not -competence time in which the employee does not necessarily work for the original employer, but is excluded to work for a competitor.
A covered non -competence agreement forbids a covered employee to compete with a covered employer for a period of up to 4 years (“non -competitive periods”) and within a geographical area that is defined by the non -competence agreement. During the period of not competent times, the muted employee is prohibited from accepting an employment in which the employee would offer similar services to the services that the covered employer will be provided in the 3 years before the non -seller. The covered employee is also prohibited from accepting employment if it would be reasonably likely that the employee would use the confidential information or customer relationships of the occupied employer. For both covered garden vacation agreements and covered non -competent, the covered employer must provide the covered employee the agreement either 7 days before the end of an employment offer or, if the employee currently works for the covered employer, 7 days before the date, on which an offer has expired to submit an agreement, for the covered employer. The employed employee must also advise the employee in writing about the right to seek advice before executing the covered agreement. The covered employee must recognize in writing that the covered employee will receive confidential information or customer relationships in the course of his employment.
Proof burden of employers to the employee
The most striking difference between the selection law and Floridas already existing restrictive federal law, section 542,335, is the burden of proof for an employer who tries to enforce a restrictive federal government. Section 542.335, which continues to apply to those restrictive contracts not covered by the selection law, requires an employer who wants to enforce a restrictive federal government to prove several elements. An employer must advocate and prove that the restrictive contract is supported by a “legitimate business interest” and that the restrictive contract for the protection of legitimate business interest (s) is reasonably necessary. If an employee violates a valid restrictive covenant in accordance with Section 542,335, irreparable damage is suspected. The employee can refute the presumption of irreparable damage by predominating the evidence. To enter a temporary or permanent order, it is necessary to determine an irreparable damage.
However, if an employer applies for the enforcement law to be enforced in accordance with the selection law, a court must assume that an employee or contractor had access to the confidential information or customer relationships of the covered employer if the employee recognized in writing that he or she receives such access.[1] In addition, a dish must For the time being, the covered employee obliges the provision of services for companies, companies or individuals as the covered employer during the termination of the termination or the non -seller. The selection law does not impose an express burden of proof to the employer.
The burden then falls on the employee to prove that the injunction is not required. The Court May Change or dissolve the temporary disposal against the employee if the employee is determined by clear and convincing evidence on the basis of not confidential information that the employee during the announcement/non-competence period in the 3-year period before the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the employment or the non-employment period or the non-employment period of employment or does not act The employment or use of the employment or the use of employment or the use of employment or employment is not provided. (2) The covered employer did not pay or issue the examination provided for in the insured agreement (salary, services, etc.) and had an appropriate opportunity to heal the failure; Or (3) The business that wants to employ the covered employee is unable to work on or prepare for the non -ban period, similar to the geographical area defined by the insured employer in the geographical area in the insurance agreement. In addition, a employer, similar to Section 542.335, is not limited to relapse to injunctive relief and can strive for money damage to all available claims. Therefore, the selection law not only presents the employee's burden of proof, but also requires the employee to fulfill the clear and convincing standard of evidence. While the employer has the burden in accordance with Section 542.335, to prove key elements of the case, the employee can only refute the evidence by predominating the evidence, a lower standard of proof than according to the selection law.
Built -in protection for confidential information
Another advantage for muted employers within the framework of the selection law compared to section 542.335 is the integrated protection for confidential information during a enforcement measure. According to the selection law, the employee cannot rely on confidential information in order to change or dissolve the injunction. All information submitted to the court that an insured employer considers confidential must be submitted to Seal to protect confidentiality.
The Choice Act aims to promote business investments in Florida
Overall, the selection law reflects the strong request of the legislator, predictability in the enforcement of contracts and promoted the business investments in Florida, the strong request of the legislator to promote predictability in enforcing contracts. As a result, the selection law strengthens the position of an employer if you force an insured agreement against a violation of a violation of a violation.
[1] Although it is not expressly stated in the ACT law, it would be the best practice to have confirmed confirmation in the covered agreement itself.