Photo of Christen Sewell

Christen Sewell

Christen Sewell counsels private and public companies and executives on all aspects of employee benefits and executive compensation.

Christen has a particular focus on benefits issues for start-ups and emerging growth companies, including:

  • Advising on the design, compliance, and administration of stock options and equity-based plans and arrangements.
  • Drafting and negotiating executive compensation arrangements, including, employment, retention, change in control, and separation agreements.

Christen also advises clients on:

  • Tax-qualified retirement plans
  • Health and welfare plans
  • Non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements
  • Bonus and incentive plans
  • Corporate transactions (M&A, joint ventures, financings, spin-offs, public offerings, SPACs)

Christen’s expertise covers:

  • Code Section 409A deferred compensation rules
  • Tax rules governing equity compensation
  • Golden parachute rules under Code Section 280G
  • ERISA
  • COBRA
  • PPACA
  • GINA
  • HIPAA
Contact:Read more about Christen SewellEmail

Nationwide Injunction

On August 20, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in Ryan LLC v. FTC, preventing the FTC from enforcing its proposed rule banning almost all non-compete clauses in employer agreements. (Click here for the opinion.) The rationale for Judge Brown’s decision was consistent with her prior ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (described here): the FTC does not have substantive competition-related rulemaking authority and the proposed non-compete rule was arbitrary and capricious. However, unlike Judge Brown’s preliminary injunction order, which was limited to the named plaintiffs, her summary judgment order states that the proposed rule “shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.” Applying the plain text of § 706(2) of the APA, Judge Brown held that the proper remedy after concluding that the non-compete rule was in excess of the FTC’s statutory authority and arbitrary and capricious was to “set aside” the rule. According to the opinion, “setting aside agency action under § 706 has ‘nationwide effect,’ is ‘not party-restricted,’ and ‘affects persons in all judicial districts equally.” As a result, the order prohibits the FTC from enforcing the proposed non-compete rule on a nationwide basis.Continue Reading Texas District Court Prohibits the FTC from Enforcing Its Non-Compete Ban Nationwide

Since 2020, with the adoption of Washington state’s non-compete statute (Chapter 49.62 of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW 49.62”)), Washington has imposed significant restrictions on employer use of non-compete agreements with employees and independent contractors, permitting such agreements only subject to certain statutory and common-law requirements, including without limitation, a minimum annual earnings threshold (the 2024 limits are $120,559.99 for employees and $301,399.98 for independent contractors), and a Washington forum for any disputes.

Now, Senate Bill 5935 (“SB 5935”) – which takes effect on June 6, 2024 – amends the non-compete statute to further restrict the use of non-compete provisions and expand the types of agreements that may be considered non-competes. As a result, employers will need to take quick action to review their employment agreements and hiring processes to ensure compliance with the new law.

However, as discussed in our Covington Alert, on April 23, 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule purporting to ban the use of non-competes with most U.S. workers.  The FTC Rule – should it become effective – would supersede inconsistent state laws.  The earliest the FTC Rule would take effect is late August 2024, and pending legal challenges may result in court orders that could delay or stay enforcement of the FTC Rule. Accordingly, employers with workers in Washington State should take steps to comply with SB 5935 before it takes effect on June 6, 2024.  Employers should also consider consulting with employment and executive compensation counsel for assistance with navigating the evolving non-compete landscape.

Here is an overview of the key changes under SB 5935:Continue Reading Changes to WA’s Non-Compete Law Require Employers to Take Action

On the heels of approving SB 699, which heightened the protections and reach of California’s prohibition of employee non-competes under California Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16600 (“Section 16600”) (see our blog post here), Governor Gavin Newsom has now signed AB 1076. AB 1076 further increases the litigation risk for employers that use employee non-competes and, most notably, requires employers to provide notice of any non-competes to current and former employees by early next year. Together, these two new laws, which take effect on January 1, 2024, reinforce California’s strong public policy against employee non-competes and specify new consequences for employers who seek to enforce or enter into such agreements.

As a reminder, SB 699 adds new Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16600.5 to: (1) prohibit an employer or former employer from attempting to enforce a contract (e.g., a non-compete) that is void under Section 16600; (2) grant current, former, and even prospective employees a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief, and to recover attorney’s fees and costs; and (3) expand the territorial reach of California’s prohibition of employee non-competes to apply “regardless of where and when the contract was signed.”Continue Reading California Doubles Down with Yet Another Law on Employee Non-Competes

California non-compete law has just been shaken-up—and the ripples are likely to travel across the country. For decades and save for narrow exceptions, California Business and Professions Code § 16600 has made post-employment non-competes unenforceable due to their potential to unduly restrain an individual’s business or profession. Effective January 1, 2024, however, Senate Bill 699 (“SB 699”) drastically expands both the protections and the reach of California’s prohibition on employee non-competes.

Specifically, SB 699:

  • prohibits an employer or former employer from even attempting to enforce a contract that is void under Section 16600;
  • grants current, former, and even prospective employees a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief—and to recover attorney’s fees and costs; and
  • applies to all non-competes “regardless of where and when the contract was signed.”

Continue Reading Will California’s SB 699 Shake Up Non-Compete Law Everywhere?

Recent legislation allows employers to continue offering first-dollar telehealth coverage without jeopardizing the ability to contribute to a health savings account (“HSA”), but only through the end of the 2024 plan year.

Background – HSA Eligibility

Employees can make and receive pre-tax contributions to HSAs to use for qualified medical expenses. To be “eligible” to make or receive contributions to an HSA, you (a) must be covered by a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”), and (b) may not have other non-HDHP coverage that covers benefits before the HDHP deductible has been met.

Certain types of coverage, like dental and vision care, is disregarded in determining whether an individual is “eligible” to contribute to an HSA. Disregarded coverage does not have to be coordinated with HDHPs. This means that participants can receive “first-dollar” coverage for disregarded coverage and still be eligible to make or receive contributions to an HSA.Continue Reading Employers Can Continue to Cover Telehealth Benefits Before HDHP Deductible Is Met

On October 1, 2022, the District of Columbia’s new ban on non-compete agreements (the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020, as amended by the Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022 (the “Act”)) went into effect. The final version of the Act is far less restrictive than originally anticipated and permits non-competes with highly compensated employees, non-competes paired with long-term incentives, and certain anti-moonlighting policies.

Key Takeaways

  • As of October 1, 2022, non-competes are prohibited in the District with limited exceptions.
  • Generally, employers can still enter into the following types of non-competes with District employees:
    • Non-competes with highly compensated employees that do not exceed one year; provided 14 days’ advance notice is given to the employee. 
    • Non-competes paired with a long-term incentive.
    • Non-competes entered into in connection with the sale of a business.
  • The Act permits specified workplace policies like confidentiality or non-disclosure policies, anti-moonlighting policies/outside employment restrictions, and conflict of interest policies. However, the employer must provide the policies to employees before October 31, 2022, within 30 days after acceptance of employment, and any time such policy changes.
  • Violations of the Act carry both administrative penalties and civil liability.
  • Prohibited non-compete agreements in effect before October 1, 2022, are not subject to the Act and remain in effect. However, employers should consult with legal counsel before amending these agreements.
  • Non-solicitations of customers and employees are not explicitly considered non-competes under the Act.
  • The Act does not apply to the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement.

Continue Reading D.C.’s Scaled-Back Non-Compete Ban Is In Effect

Employers that have employees residing in California are now required by AB 1554 to provide notification in two different forms to employees about deadlines for withdrawing funds from flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”).  One of the forms of notification may be electronic.  Examples of permissible notification forms include: e-mail, telephone, text message, mail, or in-person.  The notice requirement purports to apply to all FSAs, including dependent care FSAs, health care FSAs, and adoption assistance FSAs.  Virtually all other aspects of implementing the law are left open to interpretation.
Continue Reading California’s New FSA Notice Requirement Leaves Employers Asking Questions

The extent to which a participant in a tax-qualified defined benefit plan has standing to sue the plan’s fiduciaries for mismanagement of plan assets has long been unclear. The argument against standing is that the participant has not suffered any injury because the participant would receive the same benefit from the plan regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Closes Door to Participant Challenges to Defined Benefit Plan Investments

On May 27, 2020, the Department of Labor (“DOL” or “Department”) published a final rule providing an alternative safe harbor for furnishing ERISA pension plan disclosures electronically on a website or via email.  We previously blogged about the proposed rule here.  This post provides an overview of the final rule and highlights some key changes from the proposed rule.

As we previously noted, electronic disclosure has been permitted since 2002 under a safe harbor that allows plan administrators to electronically disclose ERISA documents to individuals who are “wired at work” or individuals who have affirmatively consented to electronic delivery.  This new safe harbor is an alternative to the 2002 safe harbor.  Plan administrators of pension plans may rely on either the new safe harbor, the 2002 safe harbor, both, or neither.  Significantly, however, the new safe harbor is limited to pension plans.  The 2002 safe harbor remains available for welfare plans.Continue Reading Electronic Disclosure Rule for Pension Plans Finalized

Consider a situation in which a former employee alleges that he or she did not receive a COBRA election notice. That’s the notice that must be provided to group health plan participants when they lose coverage as a result of certain events, including termination of employment, and that gives the participants information regarding their rights and obligations to elect COBRA continuation coverage. If a court finds that the employer failed to provide the notice, the court could (1) allow the employee to retroactively elect coverage after the election period otherwise would have ended, (2) award statutory penalties of up to $110 per day to the employee, or (3) provide other relief to the employee. There is also an excise tax for COBRA failures, including failure to provide a COBRA election notice, of $100 per day per failure. An employer must report the excise tax on Form 8928, and the statute of limitations generally would not start running unless and until the employer does so.

To prevail at the summary judgment stage and avoid a trial, some courts hold that the plan administrator has the burden of proving that the election notice was properly sent to the employee. So, what evidence does the plan administrator need to establish that the notice was sent? According to a recent decision, a declaration of the employer’s normal business practices may not be enough to win a motion for summary judgment.Continue Reading Benefit Plan Record Retention – A Cautionary Tale from Louisiana