HB 1219 creates a new statutory framework in chapter 542 for certain high-earning employees and contractors, called the Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act. The bill defines two enforceable restrictive covenant arrangements: “covered garden leave agreements” and “covered noncompete agreements.” For employees meeting the salary threshold, these agreements may last up to four years, require advance written notice, and are declared not to be restraints of trade or attempts to monopolize commerce if they satisfy the bill’s conditions. The bill also excludes health care practitioners from the covered-employee definition.
Under a covered garden leave agreement, an employer must keep the employee on payroll and provide the same salary and benefits during the notice period, though the employee generally does not have to work after the first 90 days and may engage in nonwork activities. Under a covered noncompete agreement, the employee agrees not to work in a competing role for a defined period and geographic area, with the noncompete period reduced by any nonworking portion of a related garden leave period. Both agreement types require written notice of the right to seek counsel and written acknowledgment of access to confidential information or customer relationships. The bill also sets out detailed enforcement rules, including mandatory preliminary injunctions, sealed filings for confidential information, attorney fee shifting, and remedies for employers if the employee engages in gross misconduct.
The bill also amends and reorganizes Florida’s antitrust statutes in chapter 542, renaming existing provisions as the “Florida Antitrust Act of 1980” and conforming multiple sections to the new structure. It preserves the state’s existing antitrust enforcement and private-right-of-action framework, including treble damages, injunctive relief, investigative demands, venue rules, and the role of the Attorney General and state attorneys. It further states that restrictive covenants not meeting the new definitions remain governed by existing law, including s. 542.335, F.S.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s enactment is that the Legislature viewed the measure as pro-business and investment-friendly, emphasizing predictability, protection of confidential information, and stronger contract enforcement for employers. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure and findings suggest support for employer protections and economic development, while also imposing significant limits on employee mobility for a subset of higher-paid workers.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the balance between protecting business interests and restricting worker mobility. The bill is likely to be most controversial for employees, labor advocates, and businesses that rely on talent movement, because it authorizes long noncompete and garden leave periods and requires courts to issue preliminary injunctions in enforcement actions. At the same time, the bill narrows its reach by applying only to covered employees above a wage threshold and by excluding health care practitioners, which may reflect an effort to limit the scope of the new restrictions.
HB 1219 substantially changes Florida law by creating a new Part II of chapter 542 governing certain high-income employment agreements and by reclassifying existing antitrust provisions as Part I of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980. It gives statutory approval to specified garden leave and noncompete agreements, sets enforceability standards and remedies, and directs courts to treat qualifying agreements as not violating Florida’s restraint-of-trade or monopolization provisions. The bill affects employers, covered employees, contractors, competing businesses, and courts handling enforcement actions, while leaving other restrictive covenants outside the new definitions subject to existing law.
The bill appears to have been enacted in a generally favorable, pro-employer climate, with the Legislature expressly finding that stronger contractual protections encourage information sharing, training, investment, and economic growth. No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from specific lawmakers in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure reflects a strong policy preference for enforceability and predictability in high-level employment contracts.
The central controversy is the bill’s expansion of enforceable noncompete and garden leave arrangements, which can significantly restrict a covered employee’s ability to change jobs or work for competitors for up to four years. Likely critics include employee advocates, labor groups, and businesses that recruit talent, while supporters are likely employers and industry groups seeking protection for confidential information, customer relationships, and investment. The bill partially moderates that concern by limiting coverage to higher-paid workers and excluding health care practitioners, but it still creates mandatory injunction procedures and broad employer remedies that may be viewed as heavily favoring employers.