Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Louisiana?
Only inside a narrow statutory lane. Louisiana starts from the position that any agreement restraining a lawful profession, trade, or business is null and void, and it enforces a non-compete only when the agreement fits one of the relationship-based exceptions the statute spells out .
Louisiana is not a reasonableness state. Unlike most jurisdictions, it does not ask whether a restraint is fair under the circumstances; it asks whether the agreement complies with the exact text of a single statute, La. R.S. 23:921. The statute opens with a flat declaration of nullity, subject only to the exceptions it then lists.
Because the covenant is a statutory exception to a public-policy rule, Louisiana courts construe it strictly against the employer. The Louisiana Supreme Court made that the governing posture in SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond .
The practical consequence is that an out-of-state template will almost never survive in Louisiana. A covenant that reads as perfectly reasonable elsewhere is void here if it misses a statutory requirement, because reasonableness is not the test.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1) supports the default rule that an agreement restraining a lawful profession, trade, or business is null and void except as the statute provides.
Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void.
See La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1).
Case law · 2001-06-29
A.2 SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. BondSWAT 24 supports that Louisiana non-compete covenants are in derogation of the common right and are strictly construed against the party seeking enforcement.
Because such covenants are in derogation of the common right, they must be strictly construed against the party seeking their enforcement.
See SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 808 So. 2d 294 (La. 2001).
What geographic and durational limits must a Louisiana non-compete meet?
Named parishes and no more than two years. An employee non-compete must identify the specific parishes or municipalities where it applies and may not run longer than two years from the end of employment . A mileage radius does not satisfy the parish-naming requirement .
The employee exception in subsection C is the most litigated part of the statute. It permits a covenant only within named geography where the employer actually does business, and only for a capped period.
The geographic rule is the single most common drafting trap. Louisiana requires the agreement to list parishes or municipalities by name; a radius around an office does not count. In AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, the court rejected a restriction defined by a seventy-five-mile radius as overly broad .
Do not define the restricted territory by a mileage radius or a generic catch-all such as any parish where the employer does business. Louisiana requires named parishes or municipalities, and a radius was struck down as overly broad in AMCOM.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(C) supports that an employee non-compete must be limited to specified parishes or municipalities where the employer carries on a like business and may not exceed two years from termination of employment.
Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the employer and/or from soliciting customers of the employer within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment.
See La. R.S. 23:921(C).
Case law · 1996-01-17
B.2 AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. BattsonAMCOM supports that a Louisiana non-compete defined by a mileage radius rather than named parishes is overly broad.
We agree with the trial court's factual finding that the geographical area encompassed within a 75-mile radius of Shreveport or Bossier City makes this employment agreement overly broad.
See AMCOM of La., Inc. v. Battson, 666 So. 2d 1227 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Does a tolling or extension-during-breach clause extend a Louisiana non-compete?
It should not be relied on. The statute caps the restraint at two years from termination, and Louisiana's strict-construction and no-reformation rules leave no room for a clause that pushes the restriction past that ceiling by adding back time spent in breach or litigation.
Many national templates add a tolling or extension clause so the employer gets the full benefit of the restricted period even if the former employee competes during it. Louisiana law is not friendly to that device. The statutory cap is fixed: the restraint may run for no more than two years measured from termination , not from the date competition stops or a judgment issues.
Because the two-year ceiling is statutory and the covenant is strictly construed, a Louisiana court has no general power to lengthen the restriction. The federal Fifth Circuit, applying Louisiana law in Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. Addison, vacated an injunction on a covenant that violated the statute and held that the agreement could not be rewritten to comply .
No Louisiana statute or appellate decision authorizes judicial tolling of the period, so the safest reading is that an extension-on-breach clause that would carry the restraint beyond two years from termination is unenforceable to that extent. There is no Louisiana Supreme Court decision squarely approving or rejecting a contractual tolling clause, so this conclusion rests on the statutory cap and the strict-construction rule rather than a case directly on tolling.
Do not assume a Louisiana court will add time back to a non-compete for a period of breach or litigation. The statute fixes a two-year ceiling measured from termination, and courts will not reform a covenant to extend it.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(C) supports that an employee non-compete may not exceed two years from termination of employment, a fixed statutory ceiling a tolling clause cannot extend.
within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment.
See La. R.S. 23:921(C).
Case law · 1993-09-15
C.2 Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. AddisonTeam Environmental supports that a Louisiana non-compete that violates the controlling statute may not be reformed by a court.
Finding that the agreement violates the controlling Louisiana statute and may not be reformed, we vacate the injunction and render judgment for the defendants.
See Team Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Addison, 2 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 1993).
Will a Louisiana court narrow an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it?
Only by severing, never by rewriting. A court will not add or substitute language to save a defective covenant; at most it may strike an offending portion under a severability clause and enforce what independently complies with the statute.
Louisiana courts have far less blue-pencil power than courts in reasonableness states. The starting point is that a non-compete violating the statute cannot be reformed into compliance, as the Fifth Circuit held in Team Environmental .
There is a limited exception. Where the agreement contains a severability clause, a court may delete an invalid component and enforce the remainder, provided the surviving terms independently satisfy the statute. In Brock Services, L.L.C. v. Rogillio, the Fifth Circuit applied Louisiana law to enforce a covenant whose territory had been narrowed to comply, while restating that such covenants are disfavored and strictly construed .
A note on vocabulary: some Louisiana opinions use the word reform to describe this permitted excision of offending language under a severability clause, while others, like Team Environmental, use reform to mean rewriting a covenant into compliance, which is not allowed. The distinction that matters is functional rather than verbal: a court may strike an invalid term, but it may not add or substitute language to manufacture a compliant restraint.
“Restrictive covenants are unfavored in Louisiana and are narrowly and strictly construed.”
The drafting lesson is the opposite of the strategy that works in reformation states. Casting a wide net in the hope a judge will trim it down is a high-risk approach in Louisiana, where the more likely outcome is total nullity of the non-compliant provision.
Do not draft an intentionally broad Louisiana covenant expecting a court to narrow it. A court will not rewrite a defective restraint; severance helps only when the surviving terms already comply with the statute.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1993-09-15
D.1 Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. AddisonTeam Environmental supports that a Louisiana non-compete that violates the controlling statute may not be reformed by a court.
Finding that the agreement violates the controlling Louisiana statute and may not be reformed, we vacate the injunction and render judgment for the defendants.
See Team Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Addison, 2 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 1993).
Case law · 2019-08-27
D.2 Brock Services, L.L.C. v. RogillioBrock Services supports that Louisiana restrictive covenants are disfavored and strictly construed, with a court enforcing only terms that comply with the statute.
Restrictive covenants are unfavored in Louisiana and are narrowly and strictly construed.
See Brock Servs., L.L.C. v. Rogillio, 936 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2019).
Must the employment relationship already exist when a Louisiana non-compete is signed?
Yes, or the agreement must be carefully dated. A non-compete signed before the employment relationship exists is unenforceable, though a Louisiana appellate court has allowed one signed pre-start when it carries an effective date on or after the first day of work.
The statute's employee exception applies to a person who is employed by the employer. The Fifth Circuit took that text seriously in Rouses Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Clapp, refusing to enforce a covenant a worker signed before he was actually employed .
A later Louisiana First Circuit decision, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Annison, distinguished Rouses and supplied a drafting fix. There the employees signed before starting, but each agreement fixed an effective date equal to the employee's first day of work .
Because the employment relationship existed as of that effective date, the timing of the signature did not void the covenants, which is the opposite of the result in Rouses.
On consideration, Louisiana is a civil-law state, so the question is framed as lawful cause rather than common-law consideration. Continued at-will employment generally suffices, as in Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, where the covenant the court analyzed was signed as a condition of continued employment , so an employer ordinarily need not pay a separate bonus to bind an existing employee.
Do not have a candidate sign a Louisiana non-compete during the interview or application stage. Rouses held a pre-employment covenant unenforceable; if a prospective employee must sign before the start date, the agreement should state an effective date on or after the first day of work.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2022-03-08
E.1 Rouses Enterprises, L.L.C. v. ClappPDFRouses supports that a Louisiana non-compete signed before the employment relationship exists is unenforceable.
Because Clapp was not employed by Rouses when he signed the agreement, it is unenforceable under Louisiana law.
See Rouses Enters., L.L.C. v. Clapp, No. 21-30293 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2022).
Case law · 2024-06-13
E.2 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. AnnisonGallagher v. Annison supports that where a prospective employee's agreement sets an effective date equal to the first day of employment, the employment relationship exists as of that date, distinguishing Rouses.
But Annison and Cates expressly agreed with Gallagher that the effective date of their employment agreements was the date each commenced their respective employment.
See Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Annison, 391 So. 3d 1089 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
Case law · 1995-03-03
E.3 Cellular One, Inc. v. BoydCellular One supports that a Louisiana non-compete may be supported by continued employment, where the covenant was signed as a condition of the employees' continued employment.
Defendants signed these agreements as a condition of their continued employment.
See Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 653 So. 2d 30 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
Are employee non-solicitation (anti-poaching) clauses governed by La. R.S. 23:921?
No, but they still need a durational limit. A 2024 Louisiana appellate decision held that an employee non-solicitation, or anti-poaching, clause is not governed by the non-compete statute, yet must be reasonable in scope and duration, and a clause with no end date can fail .
Louisiana practice historically treated solicitation restrictions as subject to the same strict statutory rules as non-competes. The First Circuit changed that for employee anti-poaching clauses in Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris, reasoning that restricting whom a former employee may recruit does not restrain that worker's own trade.
Falling outside the statute is not a free pass. The Farris court held that such clauses must still satisfy a common-law reasonableness standard.
Applying that requirement, the court refused to enforce the clause because the agreement fixed no end date for the restriction at all.
This distinction matters in drafting. A customer non-solicit still operates as a restraint on the former employee's trade and is generally treated under the strict 23:921 framework, while an employee anti-poaching clause is judged for reasonableness but must carry a clear end date.
Do not leave a Louisiana employee anti-poaching clause open-ended. Even though Farris placed such clauses outside La. R.S. 23:921, it refused to enforce one whose agreement was devoid of any durational limit.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2024-06-27
F.1 Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. FarrisBrown & Root v. Farris supports that an employee non-solicitation agreement is not governed by La. R.S. 23:921.
However, a contract by a former employee not to solicit employees of his former employer, like Promise Number 9, is not governed by La. R.S. 23:921.
See Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
Case law · 2024-06-27
F.3 Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. FarrisBrown & Root v. Farris supports that an employee non-solicitation provision must still be reasonable in scope and duration.
Nevertheless, a review of the limited cases analyzing employee non-solicitation provisions reflects that courts have required that these non-solicitation provisions be reasonable in scope and duration, which we also find to be a necessary requirement and therefore applicable to our analysis of Promise Number 9.
See Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
Case law · 2024-06-27
F.2 Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. FarrisBrown & Root v. Farris supports that the employee non-solicitation clause was unenforceable because the agreement set no durational limit.
In fact, the entire Agreement is devoid of any language, wording, or indication as to the duration of the terms of the contract.
See Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
Can an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause sidestep Louisiana non-compete law?
No. A choice-of-forum or choice-of-law clause in a Louisiana employee's contract is null and void unless the employee ratifies it after the dispute has already arisen .
A common strategy for multistate employers is to choose the law of a more employer-friendly state. Louisiana closed that door directly in the statute. Subsection A(2) voids forum and choice-of-law clauses in employment contracts except in a narrow ratification scenario.
The ratification exception is rarely available in practice, because an employee almost never agrees, after a dispute has begun, to be governed by another state's more restrictive law. For a Louisiana resident, the realistic planning assumption is that Louisiana law will apply regardless of the contract's choice-of-law clause.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
G.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2) supports that a choice-of-forum or choice-of-law clause in a Louisiana employee's contract is null and void unless ratified by the employee after the incident giving rise to the action.
(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement...shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action.
See La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2).
Do special rules apply to Louisiana physician non-competes?
Yes, since 2025. A physician non-compete now runs from the date the contract is signed, not from termination, and it is capped at three years for primary care physicians and five years for other physicians.
Act 273 of 2024 added physician-specific limits to La. R.S. 23:921, effective January 1, 2025. These rules differ structurally from the ordinary employee covenant: the clock starts at contract execution, a so-called burn-off period, rather than at the end of employment. For a primary care physician, the cap is three years.
For any other physician, the cap is five years from the same starting point.
The statute also narrows the geography for physician covenants and exempts certain rural and federally qualified health-center arrangements. Because the burn-off period runs from signing rather than separation, a physician who stays past the burn-off window may no longer be subject to any enforceable restraint, which is the opposite of the ordinary post-termination model.
Do not apply the ordinary two-year, post-termination model to a Louisiana physician covenant. Since January 1, 2025, the period runs from the contract's effective date and is capped at three years for primary care and five years for other physicians.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
H.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(M) supports that a non-compete restraining a primary care physician may not exceed three years from the effective date of the initial contract.
Any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains a primary care physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed three years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement.
See La. R.S. 23:921(M)(1).
Primary law
H.2 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(N) supports that a non-compete restraining a physician other than a primary care physician may not exceed five years from the effective date of the initial contract.
For any physician other than a primary care physician as defined in Subsection M of this Section, any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains the physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed five years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement.
See La. R.S. 23:921(N)(1).
Which Louisiana professions have their own non-compete carve-outs?
Several. Automobile salesmen cannot be subject to a non-compete at all, real estate licensees get a three-day rescission right, and as of August 1, 2026, interns and apprentices are protected by a new statutory ban.
Beyond the general framework, the legislature has carved out specific occupations. Automobile salesmen are protected by a categorical bar inside the statute itself.
Real estate brokers and licensees are governed by a separate statute that makes a non-compete an absolute nullity unless the licensee receives a short rescission window.
The newest carve-out covers interns and apprentices. Act 150 of 2026, enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P) effective August 1, 2026, bars non-competes for interns and apprentices outright .
Lawyers are separately constrained by the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, which generally bar agreements restricting a lawyer's right to practice after the relationship ends.
Do not use a standard non-compete for an automobile salesman, a real estate licensee, an intern, or an apprentice. Each has a specific statutory rule: salesmen and, as of August 1, 2026, interns and apprentices cannot be restrained at all, and a real estate licensee must receive a third-business-day rescission right.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
I.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(I) supports that there can be no non-compete between an automobile salesman and his employer restraining him from selling automobiles.
There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an automobile salesman and his employer restraining him from selling automobiles.
See La. R.S. 23:921(I)(1).
Primary law
I.2 La. R.S. 37:1448.1La. R.S. 37:1448.1 supports that a real estate broker-licensee non-compete is an absolute nullity unless the licensee has a right to rescind through midnight of the third business day.
A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee...shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later.
See La. R.S. 37:1448.1(A).
Primary law · 2026-06-01
I.3 La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (H.B. 315)La. Acts 2026, No. 150, enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P), supports that there can be no non-compete restraining an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or an apprentice. The Act took effect August 1, 2026 per the legislature's enactment record.
There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or apprentice and his employer restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer.
See La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P)), eff. Aug. 1, 2026.
How are Louisiana sale-of-business covenants treated?
Under the same statute, on a separate track. The buyer of a business's goodwill may restrain the seller from competing within named parishes for up to two years from the sale .
The sale-of-goodwill exception sits in subsection B and mirrors the employee rule's structure: named geography, a like-business requirement, and a two-year cap, but measured from the date of sale rather than termination of employment.
Because these covenants are negotiated between commercial parties rather than imposed on an individual worker, they are often easier to enforce in practice, but they still must satisfy the same parish-naming and two-year requirements. Louisiana has also extended comparable treatment to partners, corporate shareholders, and LLC members, each capped at two years from the end of the ownership relationship.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
J.1 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(B) supports that the buyer of a business's goodwill may restrain the seller from competing within named parishes for up to two years from the date of sale.
Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer that the seller or other interested party in the transaction, will refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to the business being sold or from soliciting customers of the business being sold within a specified parish or parishes, or municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from the date of sale.
See La. R.S. 23:921(B).
Are trade-secret and confidentiality protections available in Louisiana?
Yes. The Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act allows a court to enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation, and a confidentiality agreement remains available because it does not restrain a person from working .
Because non-competes are so hard to enforce, Louisiana employers frequently rely on trade-secret and confidentiality protections instead. The Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides injunctive relief independent of any covenant.
“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
A confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is not subject to the parish-naming and two-year limits of La. R.S. 23:921 because it restricts the use of information rather than the right to work. The important caveat is that an employer cannot use a confidentiality clause as a disguised non-compete; if an agreement is so broad that it effectively prevents the former employee from working in the field, a court is likely to treat it as a non-compete and apply the statute.
Do not draft a confidentiality agreement so broadly that it functions as a disguised non-compete. The trade-secret statute protects information and supports an injunction against misappropriation, but a confidentiality clause that effectively bars the employee from working risks being treated as a non-compete under La. R.S. 23:921.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
K.1 La. R.S. 51:1432La. R.S. 51:1432 supports that, under the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined.
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.
See La. R.S. 51:1432(A).
Primary law
K.2 La. R.S. 23:921La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1) supports that an agreement restraining a lawful profession, trade, or business is null and void except as the statute provides, the rule a disguised-non-compete confidentiality clause would trigger.
Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void.
See La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1).