0 of 4 checked
Parties and cover-term identification
Review every item below the way a Maine court would: the statute declares non-competes contrary to public policy, bans them outright below an indexed wage floor, and holds them dormant until a statutory waiting period runs. For the question-by-question legal analysis behind these items, see the Maine non-compete practice note.
Confirm the named employer is the entity that actually employs the worker. Maine puts statutory duties on the employer itself — the pre-offer disclosure, the three-business-day review copy, the prohibition on no-poach arrangements — so a covenant papered with a parent or affiliate that is not the employing entity muddies who owed those duties and whether they were met.
Dates carry unusual weight here. The signing date starts the six-months half of Maine's delayed-effectiveness clock, and an entered-into-or-renewed date determines whether the 2026 health-care-practitioner restriction reaches the agreement. An undated covenant leaves both clocks indeterminate.
Record the role and any professional license, because Maine's protections run by worker class: employees earning at or below the wage floor cannot be bound at all, non-owner veterinarians are excluded, allopathic and osteopathic physicians sit outside the delayed-effectiveness rule, and health-care practitioners gain a separate restriction in July 2026. The title line is the first signal that one of those classes is in play.
Check that the governing state is stated. This checklist reads the agreement under Maine law, whose statute frames non-competes as contrary to public policy — so a clause selecting another state's law for a Maine-based worker deserves a closer look rather than deference, since it may signal a form drafted around the baseline rather than localized to it.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the rule that a non-compete does not take effect until the later of one year of employment or six months from signing, except for physician agreements.
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).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
A.2 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the entered-into-or-renewed trigger and the July 13, 2026 effective date of Maine's health-care-practitioner restriction.
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
A.3 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(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).
Primary law
A.4 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports Maine's baseline rule that non-competes are contrary to public policy and enforceable only when reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect enumerated interests.
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).
0 of 12 checked
Definitions
Maine recognizes confidential information that does not rise to trade-secret status as its own legitimate business interest, so the definition does double duty: it bounds the confidentiality clause and anchors any covenant leaning on that interest. Test it against the line the Law Court drew — specialized, proprietary material is protectable, the worker's general skill and knowledge is not.
Define the term by reference to the statutory definition in Title 10. The non-compete statute reaches trade secrets through that cross-reference, so a contractual definition that drifts wider than the statute claims an interest Maine law does not actually grant — and an enforcement record built on it starts compromised.
One defined Restricted Period keeps every duration auditable. Maine sets no statutory maximum, so duration is judged as a fact-intensive reasonableness question — and remember the period may not even begin at signing, because the covenant lies dormant until the statutory waiting period runs.
Geography is one of the factors Maine courts weigh case by case, and the covenant must sweep no wider than the protected interest requires. Tie the territory to where the goodwill or confidential information would actually be exploited rather than to the employer's footprint or ambitions.
Bound the class to customers whose relationships embody the goodwill the worker actually carried — typically those served during a stated look-back window. Maine courts can demand specificity about the protected goodwill before blessing a severe restraint, and an entire-book-of-business definition invites that demand to go unmet.
Keep the class to colleagues the departing worker actually worked with or supervised during the look-back window. A workforce-wide definition turns a modest covenant into a hiring blockade — a poor look in a state that separately prohibits employers from agreeing among themselves not to hire each other's people.
Map the definition onto the three interests the statute actually recognizes: trade secrets, confidential information that is not a trade secret, and goodwill. Recitals about beating competition add color without adding enforceability, because a covenant aimed at ordinary competition sits outside the statutory frame entirely.
Describe the genuinely competing activity in concrete terms. Maine ultimately evaluates the restraint the employer seeks to apply, but the drafting record still has to show the scope was reasonably necessary for a named interest — an anything-we-might-someday-do definition concedes that showing before any dispute starts.
Where ownership or investment in competitors is restricted, look for a passive-holdings carve-out below a stated threshold. A clause that technically forbids index funds and ordinary public shares restrains far more than any of the three statutory interests requires — gratuitous overbreadth in a state whose baseline calls these restraints contrary to public policy.
Optional drafting mechanics. If the agreement introduces the capitalized term, check that its ownership percentage agrees with the carve-out clause that uses it; if the carve-out is inlined instead, nothing is missing.
Pin down whether the term reaches only initiated contact or also passive acceptance of inquiries. Maine treats non-solicitation agreements as the preferred lighter tool, and a solicit definition that quietly captures all dealings converts the preferred alternative into the heavier restraint the statute disfavors.
Verify the trigger treats resignation, dismissal, and expiration of a fixed term the same way. Maine adds a wrinkle worth checking against this definition: most employees must serve a full year before a non-compete even takes effect, so the relationship between the termination trigger and the effectiveness clock can decide whether the covenant ever bound the worker at all.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports limiting covenant definitions to the enumerated legitimate business interests: trade secrets, non-trade-secret confidential information, and goodwill.
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 · 2001-01-24
B.2 Bernier v. Merrill Air EngineersBernier supports the line between protectable specialized confidential information and the worker's general skill and knowledge, which a confidentiality definition may not capture.
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
B.3 10 M.R.S. § 1542 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Definitions)10 M.R.S. § 1542(4) supports defining trade secrets by reference to Maine's statutory definition, which 26 M.R.S. § 599-A cross-references.
"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).
Case law · 2011-05-26
B.4 Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. FarragoSisters of Charity supports treating duration and geographic scope as fact-intensive reasonableness questions tied to 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.
Case law · 1983-01-04
B.5 Lord v. LordLord supports requiring specificity about the protected goodwill or business value before a severe restraint is imposed or enforced.
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).
Primary law
B.6 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports the statute's preference for alternative restrictive covenants such as non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements.
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).
Primary law
B.7 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the rule that a non-compete does not take effect until the later of one year of employment or six months after signing.
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).
0 of 2 checked
Timing and execution acknowledgements
Maine turns the timing recital into a statutory duty with two parts: if the position will require a non-compete, the employer must disclose that requirement before making the offer, and the employer must deliver the agreement itself at least three business days before the required signing date so the employee can review and negotiate. Look for a recital recording the disclosure date, the delivery date, and the required signing date — a timely signature does not cure a missed pre-offer disclosure or a shortened review window.
No Maine statute demands this acknowledgement, but the statutory review window exists precisely so the employee has time to review the agreement and negotiate its terms. A counsel acknowledgement is cheap evidence that the three business days were real rather than decorative.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(4) supports the duty to notify the employee of the non-compete requirement and provide a copy at least 3 business days before the required signing date.
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).
0 of 2 checked
Confidentiality and trade-secret treatment
The trade-secret obligation should last as long as secrecy does — that is how federal law defines the right, and Maine's own act protects the same status. The stakes compound here because trade secrets head the short list of interests that can carry a Maine non-compete at all: a fixed expiry on trade-secret protection undercuts the confidentiality clause and the covenant leaning on it in the same stroke.
Give ordinary confidential information its own finite term. Maine enforces confidentiality covenants that protect specialized proprietary work while leaving general skill and knowledge free — a perpetual lid on everything the worker ever learned strains that line, and the two-track structure keeps the perpetual obligation where the law actually supports it.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
D.1 Defend Trade Secrets Act — definition of a trade secret, 18 U.S.C. § 1839Federal law keys trade-secret status to continued secrecy, which is why contractual trade-secret protection should run as long as secrecy does rather than to a fixed date.
the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information
See 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B) (2018).
Case law · 2001-01-24
D.2 Bernier v. Merrill Air EngineersBernier supports enforcing confidentiality obligations that protect specialized work without restraining the worker's 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.
0 of 3 checked
Permitted disclosures and protected conduct
Federal law, fully applicable in Maine: omit the immunity notice and the employer forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees in a later federal trade-secret suit against the worker. Maine's own trade-secret act supplies parallel remedies, but the notice is what preserves the federal ones — leaving it out is an unforced error.
Confidentiality and non-disparagement language has to leave wages, hours, and working conditions discussable — federal labor law protects that speech in every state. Maine layers its own rule on top: an employment agreement may not waive or limit the right to report or discuss unlawful employment discrimination, so the carve-out needs to reach that conduct expressly.
Confirm the carve-out for disclosure required by law, court order, or a government investigation. Maine's nondisclosure statute protects discrimination-related reporting and discussion no matter what the agreement says, so a contractual carve-out drafted narrower than the statute misleads the reader without binding anyone.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
E.1 Defend Trade Secrets Act — employer immunity-notice requirement, 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)The DTSA requires an employer to give notice of the trade-secret whistleblower immunity in any agreement governing the use of trade secrets or other confidential information.
An employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A) (2018).
Primary law
E.2 NLRA Section 7 — protected concerted activity, 29 U.S.C. § 157Section 7 protects concerted activity including wage discussion — the statutory basis for the carve-out from confidentiality and non-disparagement restrictions.
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
See 29 U.S.C. § 157 (NLRA § 7).
Primary law
E.3 26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-C(2) supports the prohibition on employment agreements that waive or limit the right 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).
0 of 1 checked
Property return and certification
Return-or-delete at separation, certified in writing. A documented return-and-certification routine is the cleanest contemporaneous evidence of the secrecy efforts trade-secret protection presumes — and it matters more in a state that steers employers toward confidentiality tools instead of broad covenants.
0 of 6 checked
Restrictive covenants (each independently includable)
Optional, and well positioned in Maine: the statute names non-solicitation agreements among the alternatives that can make a non-compete unnecessary. Keep it inside the Covered Employees class and the Restricted Period so it stays the lighter tool the statute prefers, rather than drifting toward a de facto hiring ban.
Also among the statute's preferred alternatives — but preference is not a pass. The clause still has to serve goodwill or confidential information and sweep no wider than that interest requires, so keep it tethered to customers the worker actually served during the look-back window.
Non-dealing bars serving covered customers even when they arrive unprompted — a restraint on receiving business rather than chasing it. That moves the clause away from the alternatives the statute points to and toward the restraint it presumptively disfavors; treat inclusion as a deliberate risk decision and demand a goodwill record to match.
If a true non-compete appears, route the review straight through the Maine statutory gates at the end of this checklist — the wage floor, the disclosure and review window, the delayed-effectiveness rule, and the legitimate-interest limits — before evaluating any individual term. The statute starts from the position that this covenant is contrary to public policy.
When the employer can name its real competitors, bind those names instead of the open-ended Competitive Business definition. Maine enforces these covenants only to the extent they sweep no wider than necessary, and a named list is the cleanest evidence of deliberate tailoring a reviewer can ask for.
Rare and deliberate. Confirm the passive-holdings carve-out is intact and the clause shares the defined Restricted Period — and remember an investment restraint must still trace back to trade secrets, confidential information, or goodwill, which is a hard showing for ordinary stock ownership.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
G.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports the statute's ranking of non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements as alternatives to be considered before 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 · 1983-01-04
G.2 Lord v. LordLord supports enforcing restrictive covenants only to the extent they are reasonable and sweep no wider 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).
Primary law
G.3 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports Maine's baseline that non-competes are contrary to public policy and enforceable only within the enumerated-interest frame.
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).
0 of 1 checked
Non-disparagement
Include it with a stated duration, then read the carve-outs harder than the covenant: truthful testimony, statements to government agencies, and protected workplace speech all have to sit outside the clause. The Board has struck broad versions in employee agreements, and Maine separately bars terms that limit discussing unlawful employment discrimination.
Sources for this answer
Agency guidance · 2023-02-21
H.1 NLRB news release on McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023)The NLRB held that severance terms broadly waiving Section 7 rights — including overbroad non-disparagement provisions — violate the NLRA.
simply offering employees a severance agreement that requires them to broadly give up their rights under Section 7 of the Act violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023); NLRB Office of Public Affairs (Feb. 21, 2023).
Primary law
H.2 26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-C(2) supports keeping discrimination-related reporting and discussion outside any non-disparagement or confidentiality restriction.
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).
0 of 1 checked
Physician-specific notices and carve-outs
The dedicated clause earns its keep in Maine, where the rules run in opposite directions. Agreements with allopathic and osteopathic physicians are carved out of the delayed-effectiveness rule — but a broader health-care-practitioner restriction applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 13, 2026. A clause written from the physician carve-out alone reads as permission the newer restriction has since withdrawn, so it should state both rules.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
I.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the carve-out of allopathic and osteopathic physician agreements from the delayed-effectiveness rule.
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).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
I.2 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the application of Maine's health-care-practitioner restriction to agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 13, 2026.
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).
0 of 1 checked
No conflicting obligations
The worker's representation that no earlier agreement or order blocks the new role. It earns extra value on Maine intake: an incoming covenant signed elsewhere may never have ripened under a delayed-effectiveness analysis, or may purport to bind a worker Maine would not allow to be bound — the representation surfaces those questions before the first customer call instead of after it.
0 of 1 checked
Notice to future employers and other third parties
A genuine drafting choice. If the clause appears, keep any notice factual and tied to a covenant that actually clears the Maine gates — and never let it shade into an arrangement with the new employer about who may solicit or hire whom, because employer-to-employer restrictions of that kind are exactly what Maine's no-poach statute prohibits.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
K.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2) supports the prohibition on employer-to-employer restrictive employment agreements, including entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce them.
An employer may not:
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).
0 of 1 checked
Tolling during breach
The agreement should say whether the clock pauses during a breach — but treat any extension mechanism as an open Maine question, because no statute or decision in the Maine materials addresses it. An extension also lengthens a duration that must stay reasonable under a fact-intensive test, and the delayed-effectiveness rule already makes the clock arithmetic delicate enough to deserve a worked example in the file.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2011-05-26
L.1 Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. FarragoSisters of Charity supports the caution that any extension of the restricted period lengthens a duration judged under a fact-intensive reasonableness test.
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.
0 of 2 checked
Remedies
Look for the acknowledgement that breach may cause irreparable harm and that an injunction is appropriate relief. Where the real asset is a trade secret, Maine's act supplies the remedy directly — actual or threatened misappropriation may be restrained — which is often a stronger foundation than the covenant recital itself.
A commercial choice. Maine's trade-secret act already shifts fees in both directions — bad-faith claims and willful and malicious misappropriation can each draw an award for the prevailing party — so check that any contractual fee clause is mutual and prevailing-party based rather than a one-way employer term sitting next to a two-way statute.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
M.1 10 M.R.S. § 1543 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Injunctive relief)10 M.R.S. § 1543(1) 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
M.2 10 M.R.S. § 1545 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Attorney's fees)10 M.R.S. § 1545 supports two-way attorney-fee exposure: bad-faith claims and willful and malicious misappropriation can each draw an award.
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.
0 of 1 checked
Severability and reformation
Read the severability clause as a signal, not a safety net. Maine assesses a covenant as the employer seeks to apply it rather than as drafted, and whether a court will rewrite an overbroad covenant is unsettled — while the Law Court has demanded specificity about the protected goodwill before any severe restraint issues. Flag an agreement that drafts broad and banks on as-applied trimming: the enforcement request still has to be reasonable, and the record tying scope to a named statutory interest has to exist before the dispute does.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1995-10-17
N.1 Brignull v. AlbertBrignull supports Maine's as-applied review: the covenant is assessed only as the employer sought to apply it, not as it might have been enforced on its terms.
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
N.2 Lord v. LordLord supports requiring the protected goodwill to be defined before determining the scope of any restraint reasonably necessary to protect it.
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).
0 of 1 checked
Survival
Per-covenant survival keeps each clock independently checkable — perpetual for trade secrets, finite elsewhere. Maine adds a front-end clock too: the non-compete may not even be operative yet when employment ends, so a survival clause that assumes every covenant was alive from day one misstates the agreement it sits in.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
O.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the point that a non-compete may still be dormant when employment ends if the statutory effectiveness period has not run.
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).
0 of 1 checked
Assignment and successors
Confirm employer-side assignability to successors and that the worker cannot assign. Watch the renewal trap in any transaction: a covenant re-signed or re-papered restarts the six-months-from-signing half of the effectiveness clock, and a renewal on or after July 13, 2026 pulls a health-care practitioner's covenant into the new restriction.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
P.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the six-months-from-signing half of the effectiveness clock, which a re-signed covenant restarts.
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).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
P.2 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the renewal trigger: agreements renewed on or after July 13, 2026 fall under the health-care-practitioner restriction.
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).
0 of 1 checked
Governing law, venue, dispute process
Check that the clause names governing law, venue, and dispute process. For a Maine-based worker, read a foreign choice-of-law selection as a localization gap to investigate rather than a fix: the covenant was supposed to be papered around Maine's disclosure, review-window, and effectiveness mechanics, and a clause pointing elsewhere is the most common tell that it was not.
0 of 1 checked
Entire agreement, amendment, waiver, e-signatures
Boilerplate with a Maine trap inside. An amendment that re-papers the covenant restarts the six-months-from-signing effectiveness clock, and a renewal can carry an old covenant into the health-care-practitioner restriction. Review the amendment mechanics so a routine refresh does not silently reset — or trigger — the statutory clocks.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
R.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the signing-date half of the effectiveness clock that an amendment or re-execution restarts.
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).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
R.2 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the entered-into-or-renewed trigger that can pull an amended covenant into the health-care-practitioner restriction.
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).
0 of 7 checked
Maine statutory gates (26 M.R.S. §§ 599-A, 599-B)
The seven items below exist only on this Maine page: they implement the wage-floor ban, the delayed-effectiveness rule, the legitimate-interest limits and alternatives presumption, the worker-class exclusions, and the employer no-poach prohibition that have no analogue in the jurisdiction-neutral checklist.
Check the worker's wages against 400 percent of the federal poverty level before reading anything else: at or below the floor, the worker simply cannot be bound by a non-compete, with no consideration cure and no trade-secret cure. The figure is indexed — $60,240 in 2024 became $62,600 in 2025 — so confirm the number for the year the covenant was signed rather than trusting a stale form, and move the analysis to the alternative covenants for any worker under the line.
Treat any effective-on-signing recital as inoperative for most employees: except for allopathic and osteopathic physician agreements, the non-compete does not take effect until the later of one year of employment or six months from signing. A worker who leaves before the period runs was never bound, and a re-signed covenant restarts the six-month half of the clock — check what the agreement claims against what the statute makes true, and prefer drafting that states the ripening mechanics expressly.
Demand that the covenant name which statutory interest it protects — trade secrets, confidential information that is not a trade secret, or goodwill — and that every element of scope trace back to that interest. Maine starts from contrary to public policy and enforces only what is reasonable and no broader than necessary, and the common law applies the same squeeze from the case side.
Ask for the why-not-an-alternative record: under the statute, a non-compete may be presumed necessary only if the interest cannot be adequately protected through an alternative restrictive covenant such as a non-solicit or a confidentiality agreement. The alternatives carry their own ceiling — protect specialized work, leave general skill and knowledge free — but the drafting file should show they were weighed before the heavier covenant was chosen.
A licensed veterinarian working in a covered veterinary facility cannot be held to a non-compete unless the veterinarian owns an interest in the facility — and the statute reaches backward, instructing courts not to enforce earlier or renewed veterinarian covenants either. There is no compensation-based path around the exclusion, so for a veterinarian the review goes straight to the alternative covenants.
Do not evaluate a health-care practitioner's covenant on the pre-amendment rules alone. The restriction signed on April 15, 2026 applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 13, 2026 — and because the published statute page may lag the amendment, confirm the codified text before relying on it. Remember the physician carve-out from the delayed-effectiveness rule is a timing rule, not a healthcare-wide permission.
Sweep the surrounding commercial papers, not just the employee agreement: Maine prohibits restrictive employment agreements between employers — reaching franchise, contractor, and subcontractor arrangements — and bars entering into them, enforcing them, or threatening to enforce them. A violation is a civil violation carrying a fine of at least $5,000, with the Department of Labor responsible for enforcement, so no-poach language hiding in a staffing or vendor layer is a finding, not a footnote.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
S.1 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(A) supports the wage-floor ban: an employer may not require or enter into a non-compete with an employee 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
S.2 Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025Foley supports the indexed dollar value of Maine's wage floor: $60,240 in 2024, updated to $62,600 in 2025.
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
S.3 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5) supports the delayed-effectiveness rule: the covenant takes effect at the later of one year of employment or six months from signing, except for physician agreements.
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).
Primary law
S.4 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports the requirement that a non-compete be reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect an enumerated legitimate business interest.
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
S.5 Lord v. LordLord supports the common-law mirror of the statutory limit: covenants are enforced only to the extent reasonable and no wider 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).
Primary law
S.6 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) supports the alternatives presumption: a non-compete may be presumed necessary only if alternatives cannot adequately protect the interest.
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
S.7 Bernier v. Merrill Air EngineersBernier supports the ceiling on alternative covenants: a nondisclosure clause may protect specialized work but not bar use of 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
S.8 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3) supports the veterinarian exclusion, including non-enforcement of earlier or renewed veterinarian covenants absent 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
S.9 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the April 15, 2026 signing of Maine's health-care-practitioner non-compete restriction (L.D. 2200).
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).
Law-firm commentary · 2026-04-20
S.10 Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care PractitionersEpstein Becker Green supports the July 13, 2026 effective date and the entered-into-or-renewed application trigger.
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
S.11 26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2) supports the prohibition on employer-to-employer restrictive employment agreements.
An employer may not:
See 26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).
Primary law
S.12 26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements26 M.R.S. § 599-B(3) supports the civil fine of not less than $5,000 and Department of Labor enforcement.
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).