Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Nevada?
Yes, if they satisfy Nevada's statute. A non-compete is void unless it is supported by valuable consideration, protects no more than the employer needs, avoids undue hardship, and uses restrictions appropriate to the consideration given .
Nevada is a reasonableness state with a detailed statutory overlay. The core rule is NRS 613.195(1), which states the enforceability test directly.
That makes Nevada more permissive than a ban state, but it is not a free drafting state. The statute also removes hourly-only workers, protects certain former customers, limits enforcement after a layoff or restructuring, and requires fee shifting in specified unlawful-enforcement cases.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(1) supports the four-part Nevada enforceability test for employee non-competes.
A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.
See NRS 613.195(1).
What must a valid Nevada non-compete satisfy?
Four statutory requirements. The covenant must have valuable consideration, avoid restraints greater than necessary, avoid undue hardship, and keep the restrictions appropriate to the consideration supporting the covenant .
The four requirements work together. Consideration alone does not make a restraint enforceable, and a reasonable time period does not cure an overbroad activity ban. A Nevada court still asks whether the covenant protects the employer without imposing an excessive restraint or employee hardship.
The fourth requirement is especially important for mid-employment agreements. It asks whether the restriction is appropriate in relation to the consideration, so the value given for the covenant matters to the scope the employer asks a court to enforce .
Draft the restriction around the actual interest being protected. Nevada's statutory text makes the employer justify both the business need and the fit between the restraint and the consideration .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(1)(a)-(d) supports the four statutory requirements for a valid Nevada non-compete.
A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.
See NRS 613.195(1)(a)-(d).
Must a Nevada court revise an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it?
Usually yes, when revision is possible. NRS 613.195(6) directs the court to revise and enforce an overbroad but consideration-supported covenant, and Tough Turtle Turf confirms that judicial revision is mandatory when the court can revise instead of rewrite the agreement.
The statute gives Nevada courts a mandatory reformation role for covenants that are supported by valuable consideration but are unreasonable in time, geography, activity scope, restraint level, or employee hardship.
That was a statutory change from the prior Golden Road rule. In 2016, before NRS 613.195 took effect, the Nevada Supreme Court treated an unreasonable non-compete as wholly unenforceable .
The Legislature then superseded that no-reformation rule. Tough Turtle Turf explains the history and the current limit: the court must revise when possible, but it need not supply missing essential terms or create a new contract.
For older agreements, Duong adds a separate path. Even before the statute applied, the Nevada Supreme Court allowed blue-penciling when the covenant itself had a savings or reformation clause .
Do not rely on Nevada revision to fill missing deal terms. Tough Turtle Turf requires revision when possible, but the court still distinguishes revising an existing covenant from writing a new one for the parties.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(6) supports mandatory judicial revision and enforcement of a consideration-supported Nevada non-compete that is overbroad or imposes undue hardship.
If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds the covenant is supported by valuable consideration but contains limitations as to time, geographical area or scope of activity to be restrained that are not reasonable, imposes a greater restraint than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed or imposes undue hardship on the employee, the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised.
See NRS 613.195(6).
Case law · 2016-07-21
C.4 Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. IslamGolden Road supports the pre-2017 Nevada rule that an unreasonable non-compete was wholly unenforceable.
Under Nevada law, such an unreasonable provision renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable.
See Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 132 Nev. 476, 376 P.3d 151 (2016).
Case law · 2023-11-02
C.6 Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. ScottTough Turtle Turf supports that NRS 613.195(6) overruled Golden Road's no-revision holding.
This provision overruled Golden Road's holding that an unreasonable noncompete covenant can never be revised.
See Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).
Case law · 2023-11-02
C.2 Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. ScottTough Turtle Turf supports that Nevada courts must revise a restrictive covenant when revision can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms.
It nonetheless mandates judicial revision of a restrictive covenant if this can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms.
See Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).
Case law · 2023-11-02
C.3 Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. ScottTough Turtle Turf supports that a Nevada non-compete remains unenforceable when no valuable consideration supports it or when the court would have to rewrite rather than revise the covenant.
Reading subsection (1) harmoniously with subsection (6) indicates that there are instances when a noncompete covenant will be unenforceable, such as when no valuable consideration supports the noncompete covenant or when the court would need to rewrite rather than revise the noncompete covenant.
See Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).
Case law · 2020-12-31
C.5 Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd.Duong supports that Golden Road did not bar court blue-penciling when the non-compete agreement itself authorized judicial modification.
We hold that Golden Road does not prohibit a district court from blue-penciling an unreasonable noncompetition agreement if the agreement itself allows for it.
See Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 87, 478 P.3d 380 (2020).
Can a Nevada non-compete apply to an hourly-wage worker?
No, if the employee is paid solely on an hourly wage basis. NRS 613.195(3) says a non-compete may not apply to that employee, excluding tips and gratuities from the analysis .
The important unresolved edge case is the word solely. Nevada appellate courts have not squarely decided whether a worker paid hourly plus commission, a nondiscretionary bonus, or another non-tip form of compensation falls outside subsection 3. That issue should be treated as open until Nevada courts or the Legislature address it.
Do not assume a small add-on payment makes an hourly worker covenant enforceable. The statute creates mandatory fee risk for unlawful enforcement, and the hourly-plus-commission boundary remains unsettled.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
D.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(3) supports the Nevada ban on applying a non-compete to an employee paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities.
A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities.
See NRS 613.195(3).
Primary law
D.2 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(7) supports the mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs to an employee when an employer's covenant unlawfully reaches a solely hourly-wage employee described in subsection 3.
If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
See NRS 613.195(7).
Can a Nevada employer stop a former employee from serving a customer who sought them out?
Usually no, if the statutory safe harbor is met. Nevada bars an employer from restricting service to a former customer when the employee did not solicit the customer, the customer voluntarily chose the employee, and the employee otherwise follows the covenant's valid time, geographic, and activity limits .
This is a service safe harbor, not a general permission to solicit. The former employee still needs to comply with valid time, territory, and activity limits, and the customer must come without contact instigated by the employee.
An absolute no-service clause for former customers is risky in Nevada. If the customer independently seeks out the former employee and the statutory conditions are met, enforcing that clause can trigger fee shifting.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
E.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(2) supports Nevada's volunteer-customer safe harbor for former employees who did not solicit the customer and otherwise comply with valid covenant limits.
A noncompetition covenant may not restrict, and an employer may not bring an action to restrict, a former employee of an employer from providing service to a former customer or client if: (a) The former employee did not solicit the former customer or client; (b) The customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) The former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee.
See NRS 613.195(2).
Primary law
E.2 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(7) supports the mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs to an employee when an employer restricts or attempts to restrict protected volunteer-customer service described in subsection 2.
If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
See NRS 613.195(7).
What happens to a Nevada non-compete after a layoff or reduction in force?
It is enforceable only while the employer keeps paying. For an employer-driven reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring, Nevada allows enforcement only during the period the employer pays salary, benefits, equivalent compensation, or severance .
This operates like conditional garden leave for layoffs and restructurings. It does not say every involuntary termination requires pay; the trigger is a reduction of force, reorganization, or similar restructuring. The current staged statute places this rule in subsection 5.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
F.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(5) supports Nevada's rule that a non-compete after a reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring is enforceable only while the employer pays salary, benefits, equivalent compensation, or severance.
If the termination of the employment of an employee is the result of a reduction of force, reorganization or similar restructuring of the employer, a noncompetition covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including, without limitation, severance pay.
See NRS 613.195(5).
What are the penalties for enforcing an unlawful Nevada non-compete?
Fee shifting can be mandatory. If the employer enforces against a solely hourly-wage employee, or restricts or attempts to restrict a protected volunteer-customer situation, the court must award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs .
The word shall matters. This is not merely a discretionary prevailing-party rule for every covenant dispute; it is a mandatory award tied to the hourly-worker ban and the volunteer-customer safe harbor.
Screen the worker's compensation structure and the customer facts before filing. Nevada makes the fee consequence mandatory when the covenant reaches subsection 3 employees or subsection 2 customer-service activity .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
G.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(7) supports mandatory attorney fee and cost awards to employees in specified unlawful non-compete enforcement cases.
If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
See NRS 613.195(7).
What consideration supports a Nevada non-compete?
Historically, continued at-will employment was enough, but the modern statute adds a proportionality question. Camco held continued employment sufficient at common law, while NRS 613.195 now also requires restrictions appropriate to the valuable consideration supporting the covenant.
In Camco, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the majority rule that continued employment can support a post-hire non-compete.
The statute now speaks in two places. The covenant must be supported by valuable consideration, and the restrictions must be appropriate in relation to that consideration .
The open question is how much Camco survives the statutory proportionality requirement in a difficult case. Continued employment remains important Nevada authority, but no staged Nevada appellate source squarely decides whether continued employment alone satisfies NRS 613.195(1)(d) for a severe covenant.
For a mid-employment rollout, fresh value is safer than relying only on continued employment. Camco supports continued employment as consideration, but the current statute separately tests whether the restriction is appropriate to the consideration.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1997-04-24
H.1 Camco, Inc. v. BakerCamco supports the Nevada common-law rule that continued employment in an at-will context can be sufficient consideration for a post-hire non-compete.
Today we adopt the majority rule which states that an at-will employee's continued employment is sufficient consideration for enforcing a non-competition agreement.
See Camco, Inc. v. Baker, 113 Nev. 512, 936 P.2d 829 (1997).
Primary law
H.2 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(1)(a) and (d) support the current statutory requirements of valuable consideration and restrictions appropriate to that consideration.
A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.
See NRS 613.195(1)(a), (d).
Does a Nevada non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?
This is an open question. Nevada's staged statute and cases do not squarely address judicial tolling or contractual extension clauses, though NRS 613.195(6) lets a court revise and enforce reasonable terms when revision is possible .
Many covenants say the restricted period pauses during breach or litigation so the employer receives the full period of compliance. The staged Nevada authorities do not contain a Nevada holding approving or rejecting that kind of tolling clause.
As a mandatory revision state, Nevada gives courts authority to revise time, geography, and activity restrictions and enforce the covenant as revised.
That supports an inference that a reasonable, clearly drafted contractual extension-on-breach clause could be considered with the rest of the covenant. It is only an inference, not a Nevada tolling holding.
No staged Nevada statute or case squarely decides whether a court may extend a non-compete period for breach or pending litigation. Treat tolling as unsettled, and draft any extension clause as a defined, reasonable term rather than an open-ended restraint .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
I.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(6) supports Nevada judicial revision of time, geographic, and activity limits so that revised restrictions are reasonable and no broader than necessary.
Such revisions must cause the limitations contained in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable, to not impose undue hardship on the employee and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed.
See NRS 613.195(6).
Can a Nevada non-compete be assigned in a sale of the business or a merger?
It depends on the transaction. In an asset sale, Traffic Control Services treats employee non-competes as personal and unassignable absent the employee's express consent, obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration; in a statutory merger, HD Supply says the nonassignability rule does not apply.
The asset-sale rule is strict. Traffic Control Services held that employee non-competes are personal in nature, so an asset buyer cannot enforce them without the employee's express consent, obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration.
The court later clarified in HD Supply that a statutory merger is different. The covenant passes by operation of law, so the Traffic Control Services assignment rule does not control merger succession.
Nevada also has a separate sale-of-business antitrust carve-out. Restrictive covenants that are part of a contract for the sale of a business are outside Chapter 598A when they bar the seller from competing within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time .
Do not assume an employee covenant follows the assets automatically. Nevada draws a hard line between asset sales and statutory mergers, and an asset buyer should plan for employee consent, an express assignment clause, and separate consideration where Traffic Control Services applies .
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2004-04-13
J.1 Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc.Traffic Control Services supports that employee non-competes are personal and unassignable in an asset sale absent the employee's express consent obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration.
Covenants not to compete are personal in nature and therefore are not assignable absent the employee's express consent. Further, an employer must obtain such consent through arm's-length negotiation with the employee, supported by valuable consideration beyond that necessary to support the underlying covenant.
See Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 120 Nev. 168, 87 P.3d 1054 (2004).
Case law · 2009-06-11
J.2 HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. BymoenHD Supply supports that Traffic Control's nonassignability rule does not apply when restrictive employment covenants pass to a successor corporation through a statutory merger.
Traffic Control's rule of nonassignability does not apply when a successor corporation acquires restrictive employment covenants as the result of a merger.
See HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 125 Nev. 200, 210 P.3d 183 (2009).
Primary law
J.3 NRS 598A.040NRS 598A.040(5) supports Nevada's antitrust carve-out for reasonable sale-of-business restrictive covenants.
Restrictive covenants: (a) Which are part of a contract of sale for a business and which bar the seller of the business from competing with the purchaser of the business sold within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time; or (b) Which are part of a commercial shopping center lease and which bar the parties from permitting or engaging in the furnishing of certain services or the sale of certain commodities within the commercial shopping center where such leased premises are located.
See NRS 598A.040(5).
Are Nevada physician and healthcare non-competes enforceable?
No healthcare-specific ban appears in Nevada's non-compete statute, so a physician or healthcare covenant is not automatically void — but it is not automatically enforceable either. It is judged case by case under the general NRS 613.195 requirements: valuable consideration, no excessive restraint, no undue hardship, and proportional restrictions .
The staged research reports note that the 2023 Nevada Legislature passed AB 11, a physician non-compete bill, but the Governor vetoed it. That legislative history signals scrutiny of healthcare covenants, not an enacted ban.
Current enforceability therefore returns to the ordinary Nevada framework. A physician or healthcare covenant must fit the statute, and healthcare access or public-interest facts can matter when a court evaluates undue hardship and the reasonableness of the restraint.
Do not treat the AB 11 veto as permission to use broad healthcare covenants. The current statute still requires narrow, consideration-linked restrictions that do not impose undue hardship .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
K.1 NRS 613.195NRS 613.195(1) supports the general four-part validity test that Nevada applies to a physician or healthcare non-compete.
A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.
See NRS 613.195(1).
How do Nevada trade-secret protections and NDAs compare to non-competes?
They remain available and often narrower. Nevada has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and NRS 613.200 expressly allows reasonable, consideration-supported confidentiality agreements covering trade secrets and confidential business information.
NRS Chapter 600A is Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
“This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”
The trade-secret definition focuses on economic value from secrecy and reasonable secrecy efforts.
NRS 613.200 separately makes it unlawful to willfully prevent a discharged or departing person from getting other work, subject to the non-compete statute and other exceptions . But it expressly preserves reasonable confidentiality agreements for trade secrets, business methods, customer lists, formulas, processes, and confidential information .
Use confidentiality and trade-secret covenants for secrecy interests, not as a disguised non-compete. NRS 613.200 preserves reasonable NDAs, but it also prohibits willful interference with a former worker's ability to obtain other employment.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
L.1 NRS 600A.010NRS 600A.010 supports that Nevada has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
See NRS 600A.010.
Primary law
L.4 NRS 600A.030NRS 600A.030(5)(a) supports Nevada's trade-secret definition based on independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts.
“Trade secret”: (a) Means information, including, without limitation, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming instruction or code that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public or any other persons who can obtain commercial or economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
See NRS 600A.030(5)(a).
Primary law
L.3 NRS 613.200NRS 613.200(1) supports Nevada's general prohibition on willfully preventing a discharged or departing person from obtaining employment elsewhere in Nevada, subject to statutory exceptions.
Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 613.195 , any person, association, company or corporation within this State, or any agent or officer on behalf of the person, association, company or corporation, who willfully does anything intended to prevent any person who for any cause left or was discharged from his, her or its employ from obtaining employment elsewhere in this State is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
See NRS 613.200(1).
Primary law
L.2 NRS 613.200NRS 613.200(4) supports Nevada's exception preserving reasonable, consideration-supported confidentiality agreements for trade secrets and confidential business information.
The provisions of this section do not prohibit a person, association, company, corporation, agent or officer from negotiating, executing and enforcing an agreement with an employee of the person, association, company or corporation which, upon termination of the employment, prohibits the employee from disclosing any trade secrets, business methods, lists of customers, secret formulas or processes or confidential information learned or obtained during the course of his or her employment with the person, association, company or corporation if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in its scope and duration.
See NRS 613.200(4).