AB1229 would amend Wisconsin’s restrictive-covenant statute, section 103.465, to expressly prohibit employment contract provisions that bar a former employee or agent from disparaging a former employer or principal after the employment relationship ends. The bill states that such post-employment nondisparagement clauses are an unreasonable restraint on trade and therefore illegal, void, and unenforceable. It also renumbers the existing noncompete provision as subsection (1) and adds new subsections addressing nondisparagement and required notice.
In addition to invalidating these clauses, the bill would require employers and principals to post a notice, in a department-approved form, informing workers that post-termination nondisparagement provisions are unenforceable. The notice would need to be displayed in customary workplace notice locations and, if the employer has a website, in a conspicuous place on that website. The bill applies only to nondisparagement provisions entered into, extended, modified, or renewed on or after the effective date.
The bill’s impact would be to narrow the enforceability of employment contract restrictions in Wisconsin by adding a specific statutory ban on post-employment speech restrictions, alongside the state’s existing rules governing noncompete agreements. It would affect employers, principals, employees, and agents, and would likely require employers to review template agreements, severance terms, and workplace postings for compliance. It would also give workers clearer statutory protection against contractual limits on criticizing former employers after separation.
The available context suggests little recorded committee debate or vote history, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at protecting employee speech and limiting overbroad employment restrictions, which generally suggests a pro-worker, anti-restriction policy approach. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, there is no documented public split in the available record, but the likely point of contention would be whether the bill unduly limits employer efforts to protect reputation, confidential relationships, or business interests through contract terms.
AB1229 would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 103.465 by adding a new statutory rule that post-termination nondisparagement clauses in employment contracts are void and unenforceable, and by requiring employers and principals to post a notice about that rule. It would not eliminate existing noncompete law, but it would expand the statute governing restrictive covenants to cover speech restrictions after employment ends. The bill would primarily affect employers, principals, employees, agents, and employment contract drafting and compliance practices.
The bill’s overall policy direction appears favorable to employees and skeptical of restrictive employment contract terms. The text frames nondisparagement clauses as an unreasonable restraint on trade, indicating a strong legislative intent to protect former workers’ ability to speak about prior employers. No committee transcripts or vote records are available in the provided material, so there is no documented debate to gauge bipartisan support or opposition, but the bill’s failure to pass suggests it did not advance to enactment.
The main likely point of contention is the balance between employee speech rights and employer interests in protecting reputation, brand image, and business relationships after separation. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing overbroad gag clauses and improving transparency through required workplace notices, while opponents could argue that employers should retain contractual tools to deter harmful public statements or protect legitimate business interests. Because no discussion transcripts are included, specific named opponents or supporters are not identified in the record provided.