Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Colorado?
Usually no. For covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 10, 2022, Colorado law makes any covenant not to compete that restricts a person's right to earn compensation for labor void unless it fits a narrow statutory exception.
The governing statute is C.R.S. § 8-2-113. Subsection (2)(a) voids covenants not to compete as the baseline rule, and the enforcing employer bears the burden of fitting the covenant into an exception.
The statute leaves a limited set of covenants in play: non-competes and customer non-solicits for highly compensated workers tailored to protect trade secrets, sale-of-business covenants, reasonable confidentiality provisions, and capped training-repayment provisions.
A covenant that fits a statutory exception is not automatically enforceable. It still must be for the protection of trade secrets and no broader than reasonably necessary, and the separate-notice rule and the other limits described below still apply .
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
A.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(a) supports Colorado's baseline rule that a covenant not to compete restricting the right to earn compensation for labor is void unless an exception applies.
Except as provided in subsections (2)(b) and (3) of this section, any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of labor for any employer is void.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(a).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
A.4 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the narrow exception for highly compensated workers where the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing a person who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
A.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(3) supports the list of covenants that are not prohibited, including capped training-repayment provisions, confidentiality provisions, and sale-of-business covenants.
A provision providing for an employer's recovery of the expense of educating and training a worker where the training is distinct from normal, on-the-job training and satisfies any other requirements established by the attorney general, by rule, regarding the transferability of the training or credentialing that is available to the employee as a result of the training.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(a).
Case law · 2007-07-26
A.3 Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. DowellPhoenix supports the rule that the employer seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete bears the burden of showing it falls within a statutory exception.
In the preliminary injunction context, the employer has the burden to establish that the covenant not to compete falls within one of those narrow exceptions.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
When can a Colorado employer use a non-compete or customer non-solicit agreement?
Only for a highly compensated worker, to protect trade secrets. A non-compete is permitted only against a worker whose annualized cash compensation meets the highly compensated worker threshold — $130,014 in 2026 — and a customer non-solicit needs at least 60% of that threshold, $78,008.40 in 2026.
The worker must meet the threshold both when the covenant is signed and when it is enforced, and the covenant must protect trade secrets and be no broader than reasonably necessary . The controlling figure is the greater of the August 10, 2022 amount or the amount in effect when the covenant is executed, so a covenant is tested against its execution-year threshold, not necessarily the current year . The threshold is reset annually by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's PAY CALC Order, which sets the 2026 highly compensated employee figure at $130,014 . The customer-non-solicit threshold is then derived as 60% of that figure .
The customer non-solicit threshold is pegged to 60% of the same number, and a customer non-solicit must likewise be no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets .
These thresholds do not help with health-care providers. Senate Bill 25-083 added the same carve-out to both the non-compete and the customer-non-solicit exceptions, so a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry is void regardless of compensation .
Earning above the threshold is necessary but not sufficient. Even for a worker far above $130,014, a Colorado non-compete must still be tied to the protection of specific trade secrets and drafted no broader than reasonably necessary — general goodwill or ordinary customer relationships will not support it.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
B.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the highly compensated worker requirement, measured both at signing and at enforcement, with a trade-secret and tailoring requirement.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing a person who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
B.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(d) supports the separate customer non-solicit threshold of sixty percent of the highly compensated worker amount.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers governing a person who, at the time the covenant is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than sixty percent of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers if the nonsolicitation covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d).
Law-firm commentary · 2025-12-10
B.4 Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold ChangesEpstein Becker Green's threshold tracker supports the derived 2026 customer-non-solicit figure of $78,008.40 (60% of the highly compensated worker threshold), which the PAY CALC Order itself does not state.
Effective January 1, 2026, the threshold amount for highly compensated workers is $130,014. Furthermore, an employer cannot subject an employee to a non-solicitation provision where an employee earns less than 60% of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers. Colorado’s 2026 non-solicitation salary threshold is $78,008.40.
See Epstein Becker Green, Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold Changes (Dec. 10, 2025).
Primary law · 2026-02-01
B.3 2026 PAY CALC Order, 7 CCR 1103-14The Colorado Division of Labor Standards and Statistics' 2026 PAY CALC Order supports the official 2026 highly compensated employee threshold of $130,014 — the figure that gates non-compete enforceability under C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
Highly compensated employees (R. 2.2.11) $130,014 annually, and the EAP salary (row E) weekly
See 2026 PAY CALC Order, 7 CCR 1103-14, Rule 1.2.1(G) (eff. Feb. 1, 2026).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
B.5 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(c)(II) supports the rule that the controlling threshold is the greater of the August 10, 2022 amount or the amount in effect when the covenant is executed.
"Threshold amount for highly compensated workers" means the greater of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers as determined by the division of labor standards and statistics in the department of labor and employment: (A) As of August 10, 2022; or (B) At the time the covenant not to compete is executed by the parties.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(c)(II).
Primary law · 2025-05-08
B.6 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the point that the same health-care carve-out applies to the customer-non-solicit exception, so a covered provider's covenant is void regardless of the compensation threshold.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d)).
What notice must a Colorado employer give before a non-compete?
A separate, signed written notice, on a strict timeline. Even a covenant that fits an exception is void unless the employer gives the worker a separate written notice — before a prospective worker accepts the job, or at least fourteen days before the covenant or new consideration takes effect for a current worker.
The notice must be a standalone document, written in clear and conspicuous terms in the language the parties use, identify the agreement by name, point the worker to the covenant, and be signed by the worker .
Do not bury a Colorado non-compete inside an offer letter or omnibus agreement presented for immediate signature. For a current employee, deliver the separate, signed notice at least fourteen days before the covenant's effective date or before any raise or change that serves as consideration — a defect in the notice voids the covenant on its own.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
C.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(4)(a) supports the fourteen-day advance notice requirement for current workers, measured against the covenant's or new consideration's effective date.
A current worker at least fourteen days before the earlier of: (A) The effective date of the covenant; or (B) The effective date of any additional compensation or change in the terms or conditions of employment that provides consideration for the covenant.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a)(II).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
C.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(4)(b) supports the requirement that notice be a separate, clear and conspicuous document signed by the worker.
An employer shall provide the notice required in subsection (4)(a) of this section in a separate document from any other covenants between the worker and employer and in clear and conspicuous terms in the language in which the worker and employer communicate about the worker's performance. The notice must be signed by the worker.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(b).
Are non-competes enforceable against Colorado physicians and other health-care providers?
No, for agreements entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025. Senate Bill 25-083 makes non-competes and customer non-solicits void for health-care providers — physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, certified midwives, and dentists — regardless of compensation.
The highly compensated worker exception no longer rescues a covenant that restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry, so these providers cannot be bound even if they earn well above the wage threshold .
Colorado previously allowed physician agreements to require liquidated damages tied to a competitive departure, even though an outright practice restraint was void. SB 25-083 removed that path for the listed providers and added patient-communication protections, so a covenant is void if it prevents a departing provider from telling patients about the provider's continuing practice, new contact information, or the patient's right to choose their provider.
Do not rely on the older physician rule that allowed liquidated-damages clauses in place of a non-compete. For health-care providers under agreements entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025, the covenant is void regardless of compensation, and a clause restricting patient communications is separately void.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2025-05-08
D.1 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the rule that the highly compensated worker exception does not apply to covenants restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b)).
Primary law · 2025-05-08
D.2 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the definition of the covered health-care providers: physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, certified midwives, and dentists.
"HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, REGISTERED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, LICENSED TO PRACTICE AS A CERTIFIED MIDWIFE, OR LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (adding C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(c)(I.3)).
Primary law · 2025-05-08
D.3 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the patient-communication protections that void a covenant restricting a departing provider from disclosing continuing practice, contact information, or patient choice.
(a) THE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER'S CONTINUING PRACTICE OF MEDICINE; (b) THE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER'S NEW PROFESSIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION; OR (c) THE PATIENT'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE A HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (adding C.R.S. § 8-2-113(5.5)).
Are sale-of-business non-competes enforceable in Colorado, including for minority owners?
Yes, with a new cap for minority owners. A covenant tied to the purchase and sale of a business or its assets is a statutory exception, but for an owner who holds a minority share received as equity compensation, SB 25-083 caps the non-compete's duration by a formula.
The cap applies to a minority owner who received the ownership share as equity compensation or otherwise in connection with services rendered. For such an owner, the maximum duration in years equals the total consideration the owner received from the sale divided by the owner's average annualized cash compensation from the business over the preceding two years (or the owner's tenure, if shorter) . So a qualifying minority owner who received $50,000 from the sale and averaged $100,000 in annual compensation could be bound for at most half a year.
Do not reuse a flat multi-year sale-of-business term for a minority owner who took equity as compensation for services. Calculate the maximum duration from the statutory ratio of sale consideration to average annual compensation, and size the covenant to that cap .
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
E.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(3)(c) supports the sale-of-business exception to the non-compete prohibition.
A covenant for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(c).
Primary law · 2025-05-08
E.2 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the duration cap on a minority owner's sale-of-business non-compete, calculated from total sale consideration divided by average annualized cash compensation.
THE DURATION IN YEARS OF A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION (3)(c) MUST NOT EXCEED A NUMBER CALCULATED BY THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE SALE DIVIDED BY THE AVERAGE ANNUALIZED CASH COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE BUSINESS, INCLUDING INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR OWNERSHIP INTEREST DURING THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS OR DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE BUSINESS, WHICHEVER PERIOD OF TIME IS SHORTER.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(c)).
Can a Colorado employer recover training costs through a repayment agreement (TRAP)?
Only within strict limits. A training-repayment provision is permitted only when the training is distinct from normal on-the-job training and meets the attorney general's rules on transferability of the training or credential, and the recoverable amount is capped at reasonable costs that decrease over two years .
If the employer overreaches, the attorney general can recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery on an unlawful training-repayment provision .
Do not treat ordinary onboarding or routine skills training as recoverable. A Colorado training-repayment provision is enforceable only for training distinct from normal on-the-job training that satisfies the attorney general's transferability rules, and an unlawful attempt to recover exposes the employer to treble damages.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
F.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(3)(a) supports the limits on training-repayment provisions: distinct training, attorney-general transferability rules, reasonable costs, and a two-year decreasing recovery.
A provision providing for an employer's recovery of the expense of educating and training a worker where the training is distinct from normal, on-the-job training and satisfies any other requirements established by the attorney general, by rule, regarding the transferability of the training or credentialing that is available to the employee as a result of the training. The employer's recovery is limited to the reasonable costs of the training and decreases over the course of the two years subsequent to the training
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(a).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
F.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(b) supports the attorney general's authority to recover treble damages for an unlawful training-cost recovery.
The attorney general may recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery by an employer in violation of subsection (3)(a) of this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Are confidentiality and nondisclosure covenants still allowed in Colorado?
Yes. A reasonable confidentiality provision relevant to the employer's business is expressly permitted and is not treated as a void non-compete .
The carve-out has limits built in: a confidentiality provision cannot bar the worker from disclosing information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, information readily ascertainable to the public, or information the worker has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct .
Do not draft a confidentiality clause so broadly that it functions as a non-compete. Keep it to genuine confidential information and trade secrets, and preserve the worker's right to use general skills and knowledge and to make legally protected disclosures, or the clause risks being treated as a void restraint .
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
G.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(3)(b) supports the carve-out for a reasonable confidentiality provision that does not bar disclosure of general skills, publicly ascertainable information, or legally protected conduct.
A reasonable confidentiality provision relevant to the employer's business that does not prohibit disclosure of information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, whether gained on the job or otherwise, information that is readily ascertainable to the public, or information that a worker otherwise has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(b).
What are the penalties for presenting or enforcing a void Colorado non-compete?
Significant. An employer that enters into, presents, or tries to enforce a void covenant is liable for actual damages plus a penalty of $5,000 per worker or prospective worker harmed, and faces enforcement by both private plaintiffs and the attorney general.
A harmed worker can recover actual damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees, and the attorney general can seek injunctive relief and penalties . Separately, using force, threats, or intimidation to keep a person from a lawful occupation is a class 2 misdemeanor .
The penalty attaches to merely presenting a void covenant, not just to suing on one. Before asking a Colorado worker to sign, confirm the worker meets the compensation threshold, the covenant protects trade secrets, the worker is not a covered health-care provider, and the notice rule is satisfied — because an unlawful presentation alone can trigger the $5,000-per-worker penalty.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
H.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(a) supports the rule that entering into, presenting, or attempting to enforce a void covenant is itself prohibited conduct.
An employer shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(a).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
H.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(b) supports the $5,000-per-worker penalty plus actual damages, and the private and attorney-general enforcement scheme.
An employer that violates subsection (8)(a) of this section is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
H.3 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(1.5) supports the separate class 2 misdemeanor for using force, threats, or intimidation to prevent lawful work.
It is unlawful to use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place the person sees fit.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(1.5)(a).
Can another state's law or court govern a Colorado worker's non-compete?
No, for a Colorado-based worker. If the worker primarily resided and worked in Colorado at termination, Colorado law governs the covenant's enforceability and the worker cannot be required to litigate enforceability outside Colorado, regardless of any contrary contract clause.
This forecloses the common strategy of using a Delaware or New York choice-of-law clause and an out-of-state forum to escape Colorado's limits for a Colorado employee .
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
I.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(6) supports the rule that Colorado law governs enforceability for a worker who primarily resided and worked in Colorado at termination, notwithstanding a contrary clause.
Notwithstanding any contractual provision to the contrary, Colorado law governs the enforceability of a covenant not to compete for a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided and worked in Colorado.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(6).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
I.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(6) supports the rule that a Colorado-based worker cannot be required to adjudicate enforceability outside Colorado.
A covenant not to compete that applies to a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided or worked in Colorado may not require the worker to adjudicate the enforceability of the covenant outside of Colorado.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(6).
Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Colorado non-compete?
Yes. Under Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, an employer that forbears from terminating an existing at-will employee gives adequate consideration for a non-compete signed after employment begins .
That common-law rule survives the statute, but it now operates alongside the procedural rules: for a current worker, the employer still must give the separate fourteen-day notice before the covenant or its consideration takes effect.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2011-05-31
J.1 Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. HornerLucht's supports the rule that an employer's forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee is adequate consideration for a non-compete.
We hold that an employer that forbears from terminating an existing at-will employee forbears from exercising a legal right, and that therefore such forbearance constitutes adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement
See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058 (Colo. 2011).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
J.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(4)(a) supports the rule that for a current worker the covenant or its new consideration cannot take effect until fourteen days after the required notice.
A current worker at least fourteen days before the earlier of: (A) The effective date of the covenant; or (B) The effective date of any additional compensation or change in the terms or conditions of employment that provides consideration for the covenant.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a)(II).
Will a Colorado court blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?
Do not count on it. Colorado courts have discretion to blue-pencil an overbroad covenant but are not required to, and parties cannot contractually force a court to rewrite one.
In 23 LTD v. Herman, the court explained that it is not a court's function to rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy, and a severability clause cannot compel the court to do so. The risk is compounded by the penalty regime: because merely presenting a void covenant is unlawful, an employer cannot safely assume a court will trim an overbroad covenant into a lawful one .
Draft scope, duration, and geography to the minimum the trade-secret interest actually requires, and use separable tiers rather than an aggressive savings clause. A Colorado court may decline to narrow an overbroad covenant, and presenting a void covenant carries its own penalty.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2019-07-25
K.1 23 LTD v. Herman23 LTD supports the rule that Colorado trial courts have discretion — but no obligation — to blue pencil an unenforceable covenant.
they have made clear that trial courts have the discretion to blue pencil unenforceable noncompete provisions, at least to some extent.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
Case law · 2019-07-25
K.3 23 LTD v. Herman23 LTD supports the rule that a court will not rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy.
It is not the function of a court to write or rewrite contracts for parties to enable enforcement of a contract that, as written, violates the public policy of the state.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
Case law · 2019-07-25
K.2 23 LTD v. Herman23 LTD supports the rule that parties cannot contractually obligate a court to blue pencil unreasonable covenants.
Thus, parties to an employment or noncompete agreement cannot contractually obligate a court to blue pencil noncompete provisions that it determines are unreasonable.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
Primary law · 2024-01-01
K.4 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(a) supports the drafting risk that presenting a void covenant is itself prohibited, so an employer cannot rely on judicial narrowing.
An employer shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(a).
Are employee non-solicitation (no-hire) clauses enforceable in Colorado?
Unsettled, but better supported than customer non-solicits. The statute pegs customer non-solicits to the 60% threshold but is silent on agreements not to solicit a former employer's employees, and Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell treated an employee non-solicit as a lesser restraint that can survive even when the non-compete is invalid.
Phoenix reasoned that, unlike a customer non-solicit, an agreement not to solicit a former employer's employees does not impair the worker's own ability to make a living, so it can be enforceable despite an invalid non-compete.
Phoenix predates the 2022 overhaul and the attorney general's active scrutiny of no-poach practices. Treat an overbroad employee no-hire clause as a litigation risk if it functions as a de facto restraint on worker mobility, and keep it limited to active solicitation tied to a legitimate interest.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2007-07-26
L.1 Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. DowellPhoenix supports the rule that an employee non-solicitation provision limited to active solicitation can be enforceable even when an accompanying non-compete is invalid.
Where a nonsolicitation provision is limited to prohibiting only initiating contacts or "active" solicitation of the employer's employees, it is enforceable, despite the invalidity of an accompanying noncompetition provision.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Case law · 2007-07-26
L.2 Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. DowellPhoenix supports the distinction that an agreement not to solicit employees does not impair the former employee's ability to make a living, unlike a customer non-solicit.
In contrast, an agreement not to solicit employees would not impair the former employee's ability to make a living.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Case law · 2007-07-26
L.3 Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. DowellPhoenix supports the holding distinguishing an enforceable employee non-solicit from an invalid customer non-solicit when the non-compete is void.
We conclude that, although the invalidity of the noncompetition provision did not render invalid Dowell's agreement not to solicit Phoenix's employees, it rendered invalid Dowell's agreement not to solicit Phoenix's customers.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
L.4 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(d) supports the point that the statute addresses customer non-solicits at the 60% threshold and does not separately address employee non-solicits.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers governing a person who, at the time the covenant is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than sixty percent of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers if the nonsolicitation covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d).
Does a Colorado non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?
This is an open Colorado question, and the statute's structure cuts against automatic extension. No Colorado statute or appellate decision endorses automatically tolling or extending the restricted period during a breach or while litigation is pending.
The best Colorado authority points toward caution. In Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, the court found no error in refusing to extend a preliminary injunction beyond the one-year term the parties had specified . And the statute requires the worker to meet the compensation threshold both when the covenant is entered into and when it is enforced, so a covenant whose enforcement is pushed later must still satisfy the statute at that later time .
Open question: Colorado law is unsettled on whether an extension-on-breach clause is enforceable after the stated restricted period runs. Do not assume a court will toll or extend an expired Colorado covenant, and remember that a covenant must still meet the statutory threshold at the time of enforcement.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2007-07-26
M.1 Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. DowellPhoenix supports the caution that a Colorado court may decline to extend a restraint beyond the term specified in the agreement.
Consequently, we discern no error in the trial court's refusing to extend the terms of the preliminary injunction beyond the one-year term specified in the parties' agreement.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
M.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the point that the worker must meet the compensation threshold at the time the covenant is enforced, which constrains any later extension.
This subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing a person who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
What are the key recent developments in Colorado non-compete law?
Colorado has tightened its non-compete law in four steps since 2022, moving from a title-based exception regime to objective wage thresholds, then to training-repayment and health-care restrictions.
- March 1, 2022: A class 2 misdemeanor took effect for using force, threats, or intimidation to keep a person from a lawful occupation .
- August 10, 2022: House Bill 22-1317 replaced the old executive-and-management exception with the highly compensated worker thresholds, added the separate-notice rule, and created the $5,000-per-worker penalty .
- August 7, 2024: House Bill 24-1324 tightened training-repayment provisions and authorized the attorney general to recover treble damages for unlawful recovery attempts .
- August 6, 2025: Senate Bill 25-083 voided non-competes for health-care providers and capped minority-owner sale-of-business covenants by formula .
Because the wage thresholds reset every year and the health-care and minority-owner rules apply to agreements entered into or renewed on or after their effective dates, recheck the current C.R.S. § 8-2-113 text and the latest PAY CALC Order before relying on a Colorado covenant or updating a form.
Sources for this answer
Primary law · 2024-01-01
N.1 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(1.5) supports the class 2 misdemeanor for using force, threats, or intimidation to prevent lawful work, effective March 1, 2022.
A person who violates this subsection (1.5) commits a class 2 misdemeanor, as defined in section 18-1.3-501.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(1.5)(b).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
N.2 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(b) reflects the $5,000-per-worker penalty added by House Bill 22-1317, effective August 10, 2022.
An employer that violates subsection (8)(a) of this section is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Primary law · 2024-01-01
N.3 C.R.S. § 8-2-113PDFSection 8-2-113(8)(b) reflects the treble-damages authority over training-repayment violations added by House Bill 24-1324, effective August 7, 2024.
The attorney general may recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery by an employer in violation of subsection (3)(a) of this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Primary law · 2025-05-08
N.4 S.B. 25-083 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements)SB 25-083 supports the 2025 amendment removing the highly compensated worker exception for covenants restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry — so the subsection (2)(a) void rule applies to those providers.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b)).
Law-firm commentary · 2025-12-10
N.5 Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold ChangesEpstein Becker Green's tracker supports the point that the Colorado threshold is updated annually, reaching $130,014 for 2026.
Effective January 1, 2026, the threshold amount for highly compensated workers is $130,014.
See Epstein Becker Green, Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold Changes (Dec. 10, 2025).