Recent Updates in Massachusetts Employment Law
Is Your Massachusetts Noncompete Worth the Paper It's Printed On?
Category: employment law, noncompete, Massachusetts, MNAA, litigation
Seven years after Massachusetts overhauled its noncompete law, employers across the Commonwealth are about to learn whether their agreements actually hold up. Two cases now moving through the courts — Boyd v. The Boston Beer Company and Anaplan Parent v. Brennan — are forcing courts to answer the questions the legislature left open in 2018. The outcomes will affect every company in Massachusetts that relies on noncompetes to protect its business.
Background
The 2018 Reform and Its Unresolved Questions
The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act took effect on October 1, 2018, after years of lobbying from the venture capital community and innovation-focused employers who wanted stricter limits on noncompetes. The statute imposed significant new requirements. Noncompete agreements must now be in writing, signed by both employer and employee, limited to one year in duration, and accompanied by either "garden leave" payments — defined as at least 50 percent of the employee's highest annualized base salary during the prior two years — or "other mutually agreed-upon consideration."
The law also banned noncompetes entirely for hourly workers, those terminated without cause, and interns. It was a meaningful reform. But it was also a compromise, and that compromise left critical language undefined.
The Ambiguity That Matters Most
The phrase "other mutually agreed-upon consideration" was inserted into the statute after lobbying from employer groups, including the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Massachusetts. They pushed back against the garden leave requirement and persuaded lawmakers to include a vaguely defined alternative. What that alternative actually required — how much consideration, in what form, under what circumstances — was left entirely to the courts to sort out.
For more than seven years, no case squarely addressed it. That is about to change.
The Two Cases to Watch in 2026
Boyd v. The Boston Beer Company: How Little Is Too Little?
In December 2025, two former brewery representatives — Hailey Boyd and Grace Murtagh — filed a proposed class action against Boston Beer Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Their claim is straightforward: Boston Beer offered them just $3,000 in post-employment consideration to enforce a one-year noncompete. That amount represented less than 5 percent of their base salaries.
The plaintiffs argue that $3,000 does not qualify as legitimate "mutually agreed-upon consideration" under the MNAA. They contend the statute should not permit employers to circumvent the garden leave requirement by offering a token payment far below what garden leave would cost. In essence, their argument is that the alternative to garden leave must bear some reasonable relationship to the obligation imposed on the employee.
As The Boston Globe reported, Boston Beer has declined to comment on the specifics of the litigation but issued a general statement saying it uses noncompetes to prevent confidential information from reaching direct competitors. The case is pending before Judge George O'Toole and is expected to develop throughout 2026.
If the court rules that $3,000 is insufficient, the implications for Massachusetts employers will be significant. Companies that have been using nominal payments as a low-cost alternative to garden leave will need to reassess their entire noncompete program.
Anaplan Parent v. Brennan: Who Qualifies as the "Employer"?
The second case addresses a different gap in the statute: who can enforce a noncompete under the MNAA.
Timothy Brennan was an executive at Anaplan, Inc., a business software company. During his employment, he signed three equity grant agreements containing noncompete provisions. But those agreements were with Anaplan Parent, LP — the parent company — not with Anaplan, Inc., his actual employer. When Brennan left in July 2025 to join a competitor called Pigment, both Anaplan entities sued to enforce the noncompete.
In September 2025, the Massachusetts Superior Court denied the restraining order. Judge Squires-Lee held that the MNAA requires a noncompete to be signed by the "employer," and that a parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary's workers. The court invoked what it called the "iron rule" of corporate separateness under Massachusetts law: if the legislature had intended to let parent companies step into the shoes of the true employer, it would have said so. As Mondaq's analysis of the decision noted, the court also rejected the argument that common management or oversight between entities could overcome this statutory requirement.
The case is now on appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. A ruling is expected in 2026.
Why These Cases Matter Now
The MNAA's First Real Stress Test
The MNAA has been in effect for more than seven years, but case law has been remarkably thin. Most disputes involving noncompetes settle before reaching a decision on the merits. The result is that thousands of Massachusetts employers have been drafting and enforcing noncompetes based on assumptions about what the statute requires — assumptions that have never been tested in court.
Boyd and Anaplan together represent the first meaningful judicial reckoning with the MNAA's open questions. The outcomes will set the direction for how noncompetes are structured, priced, and enforced across the Commonwealth.
The National Context
Massachusetts is not operating in a vacuum. In 2024, a federal court struck down the FTC's proposed nationwide ban on noncompete agreements, and in September 2025, the FTC dropped its appeal. Meanwhile, states continue to move in different directions. California effectively bans most noncompetes. Other states have imposed restrictions similar to Massachusetts. The trend nationally is toward more regulation, not less — making the MNAA's interpretation all the more consequential as a model for other jurisdictions.
The SJC's 2025 Foundation
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court laid groundwork for these cases with its June 2025 decision in Miele v. Foundation Medicine. There, the SJC held unanimously that the MNAA does not apply to forfeiture clauses triggered by a breach of a non-solicitation agreement — narrowing the statute's scope and signaling that courts will interpret the MNAA according to its plain text. As Lexology reported, that interpretive posture could cut against employers in both Boyd (where the text requires meaningful consideration) and Anaplan (where the text requires the employer's signature).
What This Means for Massachusetts Employers
Audit Your Agreements Now
Every Massachusetts employer using noncompetes should review its existing agreements in light of these cases. The key questions are:
- Is the agreement signed by the direct employer entity, or only by a parent or affiliate? After Anaplan, agreements signed only by a parent company are at serious risk of being unenforceable.
- What consideration was provided? If the company relied on "mutually agreed-upon consideration" rather than garden leave, is the amount defensible? If it was nominal — a few thousand dollars for a year-long restriction — Boyd may render it inadequate.
- Does the agreement meet the MNAA's procedural requirements? The statute requires written notice, a 10-business-day review period, and an express statement of the employee's right to consult counsel. Courts have shown no patience for technical deficiencies.
Consider the Cost of Garden Leave
If "mutually agreed-upon consideration" is interpreted to require something approaching garden leave in value, many employers will face a choice: pay more upfront or stop using noncompetes. For some businesses, garden leave — at 50 percent of annualized salary — may be worth the cost to protect genuinely sensitive competitive information. For others, the math will not work, and they will need to rely on alternative protections like non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality provisions, and trade secret law.
Watch for the Appellate Decision in Anaplan
The Appeals Court's ruling in Anaplan will have implications well beyond the specific facts of that case. Corporate structures involving parent companies, holding entities, and subsidiaries are common across Massachusetts industries. If the lower court's ruling is upheld, any company that routes noncompetes through a parent entity rather than the direct employer will need to restructure those agreements.
What This Means for Employees
Know Your Rights Under the MNAA
Employees who signed noncompetes after October 1, 2018 have rights under the MNAA that many do not fully understand. The statute requires that the agreement be provided to the employee before their start date (or, for mid-employment agreements, 10 business days before the change takes effect). It requires the employer's signature, not just the employee's. And it requires that the employee receive either garden leave or meaningful consideration in exchange for the restriction.
Challenge Agreements That Fall Short
If you signed a noncompete supported by a nominal payment and are now considering a move to a competitor, these cases may provide grounds to challenge its enforceability. The same is true if your agreement was signed by a corporate parent rather than your direct employer. The law is developing quickly, and an agreement that seemed enforceable when it was signed may not survive scrutiny today.
Looking Ahead
A Defining Year for Massachusetts Noncompete Law
Both Boyd and Anaplan are expected to produce significant rulings in 2026. Boyd is pending in federal court and may result in a class-wide determination on whether nominal consideration satisfies the MNAA. Anaplan is before the Appeals Court and could produce the first appellate-level guidance on who qualifies as an "employer" under the statute.
Between these two cases, the Miele decision from the SJC, and the new pay transparency requirements that took effect in late 2025, Massachusetts employment law is shifting rapidly. Employers and employees alike should be paying attention.
Closing
The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act was supposed to bring clarity to noncompete law. Seven years later, the most important questions are only now being answered. The cases developing in 2026 will determine whether employers can enforce restrictions on the cheap, whether corporate structure can be used to sidestep the statute, and ultimately, what a lawful noncompete in Massachusetts actually looks like.
If you have questions about how these developments affect your noncompete agreements — whether you are an employer looking to protect your business or an employee evaluating your options — experienced counsel can help you assess your position before the law settles.
Written by Eric Rosen, founding partner of Dynamis LLP. Eric is a nationally recognized former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense attorney based in Boston and New York. A graduate of Harvard University and Columbia Law School, Eric spent nearly a decade as an Assistant United States Attorney and served as lead prosecutor in Operation Varsity Blues. His practice focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate investigations, and complex civil litigation.
This post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
