Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Maine?
Sometimes, but Maine starts from a statutory anti-restraint rule: 26 M.R.S. § 599-A says non-competes are contrary to public policy and enforceable only if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect specified employer interests.
The statute limits those interests to trade secrets, confidential information that is not a trade secret, and goodwill. A covenant aimed only at ordinary competition is outside that statutory frame.
Maine common law points in the same direction. Lord says the covenant must sweep no wider than needed to protect the business interest, and Sisters of Charity treats duration, geography, and the nature of the protected interest as fact-intensive reasonableness questions.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports Maine's baseline rule that employee non-competes are contrary to public policy and enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect enumerated legitimate business interests of the employer.
Noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonable and are no broader than necessary to protect one or more of the following legitimate business interests of the employer:
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).
Case law · 1983-01-04
A.2 Lord v. LordLord supports Maine's common-law rule that non-competition agreements are enforced only to the extent reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect the business interest at issue.
We have long recognized that non-competition agreements are contrary to public policy and will be enforced only to the extent that they are reasonable and sweep no wider than necessary to protect the business interests in issue.
See Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 834 (Me. 1983).
Case law · 2011-05-26
A.3 Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. FarragoSisters of Charity supports the fact-intensive Maine reasonableness inquiry based on duration, geographic scope, and the protected interest.
Although reasonableness is a question of law, the inquiry is fact-intensive, and it depends on the specific circumstances of the case: the covenant’s duration, the scope of the specified geographic area, and the nature of the interest to be protected.
See Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Farrago, 2011 ME 62, ¶ 10, 21 A.3d 110.
Which Maine workers cannot be bound by non-competes?
Maine bars non-competes for employees earning at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and for non-owner licensed veterinarians in covered veterinary facilities.
The wage floor moves with the federal poverty level. Foley reports that Maine updated its threshold from $60,240 in 2024 to $62,600 in 2025 .
The veterinarian rule is stronger than ordinary non-enforcement. The current statutory text also tells courts not to enforce earlier or renewed veterinarian non-competes unless the veterinarian has an ownership interest in the facility .
Do not treat the physician delayed-effect carve-out as a healthcare-wide permission rule. A separate health-care-practitioner restriction is now law: Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on April 15, 2026, and it applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after its July 13, 2026 effective date.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports the prohibition on non-competes for employees earning at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
The employee is earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level; or
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(A).
Law-firm commentary · 2025-01-01
B.3 Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025Foley supports the 2025 dollar threshold for Maine's 400 percent federal-poverty-level non-compete wage floor.
Accordingly, Maine is updating its $60,240 threshold from 2024 to $62,600 in 2025.
See Foley & Lardner, Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025 (2025).
Primary law
B.2 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports the special non-enforcement rule for earlier or renewed veterinarian non-competes unless the veterinarian has an ownership interest.
A court may not enforce a noncompete agreement entered into or renewed with an employee who is a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71‑A before the effective date of this paragraph unless the employee is working in a veterinary facility in which the employee has an ownership interest.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
B.4 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green reports that Maine enacted a health-care-practitioner non-compete restriction (L.D. 2200), signed by Governor Mills on April 15, 2026.
On April 15, 2026, Governor Janet T. Mills signed into law “An Act Relating to Noncompete Agreements Between Employers and Health Care Practitioners,” L.D. 2200 (the “Amendments”).
See Epstein Becker Green, Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners (2026).
What notice and timing rules apply to Maine non-competes?
Maine requires pre-offer disclosure, a copy at least 3 business days before signing, and delayed effectiveness until the later of one year of employment or 6 months after signing, except for allopathic and osteopathic physician agreements.
The notice rule has two parts. First, if the job will require a non-compete, the employer must disclose that requirement before making the offer. Second, the employer must provide the agreement at least 3 business days before the required signing date.
The delayed-effectiveness rule is separate from the signing rule. A compliant agreement can be signed before it takes effect. For most employees, the restriction does not ripen until both the statutory waiting period and the employment-duration rule are satisfied.
Build the notice and delay rules into onboarding workflows. A signature collected on time is not enough if the pre-offer disclosure or 3-business-day copy requirement was missed .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports the requirement to notify the employee and provide a copy of the noncompete agreement at least 3 business days before it must be signed.
An employer shall notify an employee or prospective employee of a noncompete agreement requirement and provide a copy of the noncompete agreement not less than 3 business days before the employer requires the agreement to be signed to allow time for the employee or prospective employee to review the agreement and negotiate the terms of the agreement or employment with the employer if the employee or prospective employee wishes to do so.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(4).
Primary law
C.2 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports Maine's delayed-effectiveness rule and the statutory physician exception.
Except for a noncompete agreement between an employer and an allopathic physician or an osteopathic physician licensed under Title 32, chapter 48 or chapter 36, respectively, the terms of a noncompete agreement do not take effect until after one year of the employee's employment with the employer or a period of 6 months from the date the agreement was signed, whichever is later.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5).
Will Maine courts narrow or reform an overbroad non-compete?
Often they evaluate the restraint as applied, not only as drafted. Brignull says Maine assesses a non-compete only as the employer sought to apply it.
That makes Maine different from a strict red-pencil jurisdiction and from a mechanical blue-pencil state. The court can focus on the actual enforcement request, but the requested restraint still must be reasonable in duration, geography, and protected interest.
Lord gives the limiting principle. The court may require specificity about what goodwill or business value needs protection before imposing or enforcing a severe restraint .
Do not draft broadly just because Maine recognizes as-applied review. Lord still requires a record showing that the scope is reasonably necessary to protect the specific goodwill or business value at issue .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1995-10-17
D.1 Brignull v. AlbertBrignull supports Maine's as-applied review of non-compete reasonableness.
Finally, because the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement depends on the specific facts of the case, we assess the agreement only as Brignull has sought to apply it and not as it might have been enforced on its terms.
See Brignull v. Albert, 666 A.2d 82, 84 (Me. 1995).
Case law · 1983-01-04
D.2 Lord v. LordLord supports requiring specificity about the protected goodwill or business value before imposing a severe non-competition restraint.
Upon remand, on the basis of the existing record and any further evidence received, the presiding justice should first define the nature and components of the good will included in the determination of value and then proceed to determine the scope of any restraint which may be reasonably necessary to protect the value of the asset.
See Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 835 (Me. 1983).
Are employer no-poach or no-hire agreements allowed in Maine?
No. 26 M.R.S. § 599-B prohibits employer-to-employer restrictive employment agreements that restrict one employer from soliciting or hiring another employer's employees or former employees .
The statute reaches agreements between two or more employers, including through franchise, contractor, and subcontractor arrangements. It separately bars entering into the agreement, enforcing it, or threatening enforcement.
Violations carry a civil fine of at least $5,000, and the Maine Department of Labor enforces the section .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
E.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-B supports Maine's prohibition on employer-to-employer no-poach or no-hire agreements.
An employer may not:
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).
Primary law
E.2 26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-B supports the civil penalty and Department of Labor enforcement rule for prohibited restrictive employment agreements.
An employer that violates subsection 2 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $5,000 may be adjudged. The Department of Labor is responsible for enforcement of this section.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-B(3).
Are non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements safer alternatives in Maine?
Often yes. Section 599-A itself points to nonsolicitation, nondisclosure, and confidentiality agreements as alternatives, and a non-compete may be presumed necessary only when those alternatives cannot adequately protect the interest .
That does not make every alternative covenant low risk. A confidentiality covenant can protect information beyond trade secrets, but it cannot bar use of general skill or knowledge. Bernier upheld a nondisclosure clause because it protected specialized original work without stopping the employee from using general skill and knowledge .
Maine also has a separate employment NDA statute. Section 599-C protects reporting, testimony, evidence, and law-enforcement communications in discrimination-related contexts, while preserving ordinary protections for proprietary information, trade secrets, and information confidential by law.
Do not make a confidentiality clause do non-compete work. Maine allows protection for specialized confidential information, but Bernier distinguishes that from blocking general skill and knowledge .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
F.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A supports using nonsolicitation, nondisclosure, and confidentiality agreements as alternative restrictive covenants before relying on a non-compete.
A noncompete agreement may be presumed necessary if the legitimate business interest cannot be adequately protected through an alternative restrictive covenant, including but not limited to a nonsolicitation agreement or a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).
Case law · 2001-01-24
F.2 Bernier v. Merrill Air EngineersBernier supports enforcing confidentiality covenants for specialized proprietary information while preserving the employee's ability to use general skill and knowledge.
The nondisclosure clause does not prohibit Bernier from using the general skill and knowledge he acquired during his employment with Merrill.
See Bernier v. Merrill Air Eng'rs, 2001 ME 17, ¶ 18, 770 A.2d 97.
Primary law
F.3 26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-C supports Maine's limits on employment agreements that waive or limit rights to report or discuss unlawful employment discrimination.
An employer may not require an employee, intern or applicant for employment to enter into a contract or agreement that waives or limits any right to report or discuss unlawful employment discrimination, as defined and limited by Title 5, chapter 337, subchapter 3, occurring in the workplace or at work-related events.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-C(2).
Primary law
F.4 26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-C supports preserving nondisclosure agreements for proprietary information, trade secrets, and information otherwise confidential by law.
Nothing in this section may be construed as limiting the use of nondisclosure agreements to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information, trade secrets or information that is otherwise confidential by law, rule or regulation.
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-C(4).
What trade-secret remedies are available in Maine?
Maine trade-secret law gives employers remedies that can substitute for or sit beside narrow restrictive covenants, including injunctions, damages, exemplary damages, and attorney-fee awards.
The definition matters because § 599-A cross-references Title 10, section 1542 for trade secrets. Maine defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable secrecy efforts .
The remedies are practical. Courts may restrain actual or threatened misappropriation, award actual loss and unjust enrichment, use a reasonable royalty measure, and award exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
G.4 10 M.R.S. § 1542 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Definitions)10 M.R.S. § 1542 supports Maine's statutory trade-secret definition.
"Trade secret" means information, including, but not limited to, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that:
See 10 M.R.S. § 1542(4).
Primary law
G.1 10 M.R.S. § 1543 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Injunctive relief)10 M.R.S. § 1543 supports injunctive relief for actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be restrained or enjoined.
See 10 M.R.S. § 1543(1).
Primary law
G.2 10 M.R.S. § 1544 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Damages)10 M.R.S. § 1544 supports actual-loss and unjust-enrichment damages plus a reasonable-royalty alternative measure, and separately (in subsection 2) exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation.
Damages may include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
See 10 M.R.S. § 1544(1).
Primary law
G.3 10 M.R.S. § 1545 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Attorney's fees)10 M.R.S. § 1545 supports attorney-fee awards for bad-faith trade-secret claims or motions and for willful and malicious misappropriation.
If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing party.
See 10 M.R.S. § 1545.
What recent Maine non-compete developments should employers track?
Track three moving points: the annually indexed wage threshold, the 2024 veto of L.D. 1496, and the newly enacted L.D. 2200 health-care-practitioner restriction effective July 13, 2026.
The 2024 veto means Maine did not move to a near-total employee non-compete ban then. Bernstein Shur reports that the veto was sustained on April 2, 2024, so employers continued to draft under the existing L.D. 733 framework .
The 2026 healthcare development is now law. Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on April 15, 2026, and it applies to non-compete agreements entered into or renewed on or after its July 13, 2026 effective date .
Confirm the codified text before relying on the § 599-A page alone for healthcare covenants. L.D. 2200 was signed on April 15, 2026 but does not take effect until July 13, 2026, so the Revisor's current § 599-A text may still show only the wage-floor and veterinarian prohibitions until the amendment is codified.
Sources for this answer
Law-firm commentary · 2025-01-01
H.1 Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025Foley supports that Maine's non-compete wage threshold is indexed and increases each year, making it a recurring item to re-check.
Specifically, thresholds in Washington, Colorado, Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. increase each year.
See Foley & Lardner, Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025 (2025).
Law-firm commentary · 2024-04-10
H.2 Governor Mills Vetoes L.D. 1496: What Maine Employers Need to KnowBernstein Shur supports the 2024 L.D. 1496 veto status and the point that Maine employers continued to reference L.D. 733 after the veto was sustained.
Because L.D. 1496 was vetoed and that veto was sustained by the Maine State Legislature, Maine employers should continue to reference L.D. 733 when drafting and negotiating noncompete agreements.
See Bernstein Shur, Governor Mills Vetoes L.D. 1496: What Maine Employers Need to Know (2024).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
H.3 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the L.D. 2200 effective date of July 13, 2026 and its application to agreements entered into or renewed on or after that date.
The Amendments apply to all noncompete agreements entered into, or renewed on or after, the Amendments’ effective date of July 13, 2026 (the “Effective Date”).
See Epstein Becker Green, Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners (2026).
Primary law
H.4 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A's current codified prohibited-worker text identifies the 400% federal-poverty-level wage floor.
The employee is earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level; or
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(A).