A side-by-side comparison of how every US state and territory treats employee non-compete agreements. Each row links to the full practice note for that jurisdiction. This is legal research, not legal advice.
Alabama voids non-competes by default but enforces an employee covenant that fits the Restrictive Covenant Act's narrow safe harbor, protects a statutory interest, and is properly signed.
Ala. Code § 8-1-190 et seq. (Restrictive Covenant Act)
Main exceptions
Sale of business; current-customer non-solicit (18-mo); employee no-hire for uniquely essential workers; professional exemption (physicians, CPAs, veterinarians, physical therapists)
Alaska has no non-compete statute; employee covenants are enforceable under common law if reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and no broader than needed.
common law (Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988))
No non-compete statute and no on-point case law; a court would likely apply the Restatement reasonableness test, with local public policy disfavoring broad restraints.
A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 (imported common law); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188
Arizona has no general non-compete statute; an employee covenant is enforceable under common law only if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
common law (Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 982 P.2d 1277 (Ariz. 1999))
Main exceptions
Broadcast-employee ban (A.R.S. § 23-494); physicians enforceable only under heightened scrutiny
Arkansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, protects a statutory business interest, and is no broader in time and scope than necessary, with overbroad covenants reformed by the court.
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 (Act 921 of 2015; amended by Act 232 of 2025)
Main exceptions
Physician practice restrictions void (§ 4-75-101(k), 2025); Title 17 Subtitle 3 licensees excluded; non-solicits/NDAs excluded
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Open question — prospective injunctions allowed, contractual tolling unsettled
Employee non-competes and customer non-solicits are void by statute, and since 2024 entering or enforcing one is a civil violation with a private right of action.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600
Main exceptions
Sale of a business or ownership interest (§§ 16601–16602.5)
When the ban took effect
Longstanding (§ 16600); 2024 enforcement laws SB 699 / AB 1076 effective Jan 1, 2024
Colorado voids most employee non-competes and customer non-solicits, allowing a non-compete only against a highly compensated worker ($130,014 in 2026) to protect trade secrets, and banning them entirely for health-care providers.
C.R.S. § 8-2-113
Main exceptions
Health-care provider ban (eff. Aug 6, 2025, SB 25-083); sale-of-business; reasonable confidentiality; capped training-repayment
When the ban took effect
Aug 10, 2022 (covenants entered or renewed on/after; HB 22-1317)
Can a court narrow it?
Unsettled
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Open question — threshold must be met at enforcement, cutting against extension
Connecticut enforces employee non-competes only if reasonable under common law, but several occupation-specific statutes cap or void covenants for covered workers.
common law (Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976)); occupation statutes
Delaware enforces reasonable non-competes under Chancery/Supreme Court case law but increasingly refuses to blue-pencil overbroad ones, and physician practice-restricting covenants are void by statute.
common law (FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 (Del. Ch.)); physician ban 6 Del. C. § 2707
Main exceptions
Physician practice covenants void (§ 2707); home-inspector trainees; sale-of-business reviewed less searchingly
The District bans non-competes for most employees and permits them only for highly compensated employees (above an annually adjusted pay floor) whose covenant meets strict scope, duration, and 14-day notice requirements.
D.C. Code § 32-581.02 (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020)
Main exceptions
Highly compensated employees above the pay threshold ($162,164 in 2026); medical specialists ($270,274 in 2026, 730-day cap); sale-of-business; confidentiality/long-term-incentive carve-outs; broadcast employees cannot be bound; pre-Oct 1, 2022 agreements under common law
When the ban took effect
October 1, 2022
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Open question — caps run as fixed days from separation
Maximum length set by law
365 days (non-medical highly compensated employee); 730 days (medical specialist)
Among the most employer-friendly states — enforceable with a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a 2025 CHOICE Act high-earner track.
Fla. Stat. § 542.335
Main exceptions
Specialist-physician ban in monopolized counties (§ 542.336)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not addressed by statute
Maximum length set by law
No hard cap; over 2 years presumed unreasonable for employees
Georgia enforces non-competes that are reasonable in time, area, and scope under the Restrictive Covenants Act, but only against employees who perform covered higher-level job functions.
Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 13-8-50 to 13-8-59
Main exceptions
Employee-category gate (§ 13-8-53(a)); longer presumptions for distributors/franchisees (3 yr) and sellers (5 yr+)
Guam voids employee non-competes by statute — 18 GCA § 88105, a transplant of California's restraint-of-trade rule that the Supreme Court of Guam reads as a per-se ban — leaving only narrow sale-of-business and partnership-dissolution exceptions.
18 GCA § 88105; Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32
Main exceptions
Sale of business good will (§ 88106); partnership dissolution (§ 88107)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not addressed
Maximum length set by law
Not applicable (employee covenant void regardless of duration)
Hawaii treats non-competes as restraints of trade under its antitrust statute, enforcing only covenants ancillary to a legitimate purpose, and flatly banning non-compete/non-solicit clauses for technology-business employees.
Idaho enforces non-competes only against key employees or key independent contractors and only if reasonable, with an 18-month duration safe harbor and mandatory judicial modification of overbroad terms.
Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 to 44-2704
Main exceptions
Only key employees/independent contractors; healthcare weighed against patient access; sale-of-business reviewed less strictly
Illinois enforces employee non-competes only above a $75,000 earnings floor and only if they clear the Freedom to Work Act's consideration and 14-day-notice gates and the Reliable Fire reasonableness test.
Illinois Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90 (Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo)
Main exceptions
Construction workers; broadcasters; temp-agency nurses; public-sector CBA; COVID-19 layoffs; certain mental-health professionals; sale of business excluded
When the ban took effect
Jan 1, 2022 (Public Act 102-358)
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not addressed by statute — open question
Maximum length set by law
No statutory maximum (duration judged for reasonableness)
Indiana enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, activity, and geography and protects a legitimate interest; courts disfavor them and use a strict eraser blue pencil.
common law (Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008))
Main exceptions
Physician-hospital covenants banned (SEA 475, 2025); primary-care physician non-competes banned (SEA 7, 2023); physician covenants must meet HEA 1004
Iowa enforces an employee non-compete only if it satisfies a three-prong reasonableness test, with the employer bearing the burden; courts may reform an overbroad covenant rather than void it.
common law (Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 595 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 1999))
Kansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, reasonable under the four-factor Weber test, and not adverse to the public welfare, and is one of the more employer-friendly states; courts will narrow an overbroad restraint.
common law (Weber v. Tillman, 913 P.2d 84 (Kan. 1996))
Main exceptions
Non-competes excluded from K.S.A. 50-163 Restraint of Trade Act; non-solicit & owner safe harbors; no physician/healthcare ban
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
No — Doan declined an indefinite tolling-during-breach clause
Kentucky enforces a non-compete only if it is supported by valid consideration and reasonable in scope; existing employees must get new consideration, and courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms.
common law (Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009); Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014))
Louisiana voids every non-compete by default and enforces one only if it fits a narrow statutory exception with named parishes and a two-year cap, so most out-of-state templates fail.
La. R.S. 23:921
Main exceptions
Employee exception (subsection C, 2-yr/named parishes); sale of business; physician burn-off limits; automobile salesmen banned; intern/apprentice ban (Aug 1, 2026)
Maine treats non-competes as contrary to public policy and enforces them only when reasonable, and bans them entirely for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level (and for non-owner veterinarians).
26 M.R.S. § 599-A
Main exceptions
Veterinarian (non-owner) ban; health-care-practitioner restriction (L.D. 2200, eff. July 13, 2026); employer no-poach ban (§ 599-B)
When the ban took effect
Wage-floor ban (threshold indexed; $62,600 in 2025)
Maryland enforces an ordinary employee non-compete only if it is reasonable under the Becker common-law test, but a statute voids covenants outright for low-wage, veterinary, and many health care workers.
Massachusetts enforces an employee non-compete only if it meets the 2018 Noncompetition Agreement Act — paid garden leave or agreed consideration, a 12-month cap, and strict notice — and voids them entirely for physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and most broadcasters.
Michigan enforces an employee non-compete if it protects a reasonable competitive business interest and is reasonable in duration, geography, and type of employment, with no categorical worker or profession ban.
MCL § 445.774a; St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel, 270 Mich. App. 260 (2006)
Main exceptions
B2B/sale-of-business covenants judged under antitrust rule of reason; no physician or profession ban
Most employee and independent-contractor non-competes signed on or after July 1, 2023 are void and unenforceable, with only sale-of-business and business-dissolution exceptions surviving.
Minn. Stat. § 181.988
Main exceptions
Sale of business; dissolution of business; pre-July 1, 2023 agreements under common law; NDAs/nonsolicits excluded
Mississippi enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, territory, and activity to protect a legitimate interest, and it will not be enforced after a bad-faith firing.
common law (Texas Road Boring Co. v. Parker, 194 So. 2d 885 (Miss. 1967))
Main exceptions
Bad-faith-termination defense (Empiregas); minors may disaffirm; lawyers barred (R. 5.6); no health-care statutory ban
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
No judicial tolling (Frierson); express extension clause given effect (Cascio)
Missouri enforces a non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable and protects the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition, with the employer bearing the burden.
Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006)
Main exceptions
Employee no-hire/anti-raiding safe harbor (§ 431.202, ≤1 yr); owner/sale covenants (§ 431.204); no physician statutory cap
Montana's restraint-of-trade statute voids absolute restraints, but reasonable partial restraints survive under the Dobbins rule of reason, and covered health-care provider non-competes are now banned.
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (Dobbins, DeGuire & Tucker, P.C. v. Rutherford, 708 P.2d 577 (Mont. 1985))
Main exceptions
Health-care provider ban (§ 28-2-724, HB 198/HB 620, all physicians Jan 1, 2026); sale-of-goodwill (§ 28-2-704); partnership dissolution (§ 28-2-705); employer-initiated termination usually defeats enforcement (Wrigg)
Nebraska enforces only narrowly tailored covenants limited to customers the employee personally served, refuses to rewrite overbroad ones, and has no general statutory ban as of 2026.
common law (Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 106 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 1960); Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co., 407 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 1987))
Main exceptions
Franchise non-competes reformable by statute (§ 87-404); sale-of-business more favorable; successor enforcement by merger
Nevada enforces employee non-competes that meet a four-part statutory reasonableness test, but bans them for solely hourly-wage workers and requires courts to revise overbroad covenants.
NRS 613.195
Main exceptions
Hourly-wage workers excluded; volunteer-customer safe harbor; layoff/RIF enforceable only while employer pays; sale-of-business antitrust carve-out (NRS 598A.040)
New Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a three-part common-law test, but voids them for low-wage employees (at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage) and requires pre-acceptance notice to new hires.
Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979); RSA 275:70 and RSA 275:70-a
Main exceptions
Low-wage ban (≤200% federal min wage); pre-acceptance notice (RSA 275:70); geographic-practice bans for physicians/nurses/APRNs/podiatrists; sale-of-business
When the ban took effect
APRN health-care ban eff. Aug 23, 2025 (low-wage ban date not stated)
New Jersey enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Solari/Whitmyer three-part reasonableness test and readily blue-pencils overbroad covenants, though a pending bill would ban most of them.
Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970); Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business more freely enforceable; physician public-interest scrutiny; psychologist rule (N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16); attorney ban (RPC 5.6)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Yes — court may toll the restricted period during an actual breach (ADP v. Kusins)
New Mexico enforces ordinary employee non-competes only when reasonable and supported by valid consideration, but a statute makes covered health-care practitioner non-competes unenforceable.
New York has no general non-compete statute; employee non-competes are enforceable only to the extent reasonable under the common-law BDO Seidman three-part test, with a statutory ban only for broadcast-industry employees.
BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999)
Main exceptions
Broadcast-employee ban (N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k); sale-of-business/goodwill more favorable
North Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only if it is in writing, supported by consideration, reasonable in time and territory, and protects a legitimate business interest.
common law (Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989)); writing requirement N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4
Main exceptions
Physician/health-care covenants face a public-policy bar (Zaldivar); pending HB 269 (<$75k) and SB 673 (hospital) not enacted
The CNMI has no non-compete statute; a post-employment covenant is enforceable only if reasonable under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188, which 7 CMC § 3401 imports as Commonwealth law, and the one on-point federal order denied an injunction in a small-island healthcare context.
7 CMC § 3401 (importing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188); August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona
Main exceptions
No statutory carve-outs; small-island public-interest and hardship factors weigh heavily against healthcare/specialist covenants
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Unsettled
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Silent — rely on an explicit tolling clause kept within § 188 reasonableness
Ohio enforces an employee non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable under the Raimonde test — no broader than needed to protect the employer, not unduly harsh on the employee, and not injurious to the public.
Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21 (1975)
Main exceptions
Physician public-interest scrutiny; pending S.B. 301 (nonprofit-hospital cap) and S.B. 11 (broad ban) not enacted
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Yes — a covenant may not expire while enforceability is litigated (Homan)
Oklahoma voids employee non-competes by statute, permitting only narrow carve-outs for direct customer non-solicitation, employee anti-raiding, and sale-of-business or partnership-dissolution covenants.
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217
Main exceptions
Sale of goodwill (§ 218); partnership dissolution (§ 219); direct customer non-solicit (§ 219A); employee anti-raiding (§ 219B); trade-secret clauses outside the ban
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not addressed
Maximum length set by law
No statutory limit on the ban; sale covenants limited to a county and contiguous counties
An Oregon employee non-compete is void by default unless the employer meets a strict ORS 653.295 checklist — including pay above an inflation-indexed threshold ($119,541 for 2026) — or pays garden leave.
ORS 653.295
Main exceptions
Medical-licensee (physician/nurse) ban (ORS 653.297, 2025, retroactive); non-solicit/bonus/sale-of-business outside the checklist; garden-leave path
When the ban took effect
Salary threshold & 12-mo cap eff. Jan 1, 2022; medical-licensee ban eff. June 9, 2025
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Silent — 12-month-from-termination cap cuts against tolling
Pennsylvania enforces an employee non-compete only if it is ancillary to employment, supported by adequate consideration, reasonably limited in time and territory, and tied to a legitimate business interest, with a 2024 statute sharply restricting health care covenants.
Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266 (Pa. 2015)
Main exceptions
Health-care practitioner restrictions (Act 74 of 2024, eff. Jan 1, 2025 — voids covenants over one year and any where employer dismissed practitioner); B2B no-hire clauses unenforceable (Beemac)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Unsettled
Maximum length set by law
No statutory limit (except Act 74 one-year cap for health care)
Puerto Rico has no non-compete statute; a covenant is enforceable only if it satisfies the strict three-part Arthur Young reasonableness test — capped at twelve months, supported by real consideration, and in writing — and courts void rather than rewrite any covenant that falls short.
Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994)
Main exceptions
Covenants ancillary to a sale of business / ownership exit (e.g. stock-redemption) judged more flexibly than the strict Arthur Young employer-employee test (Reyes Ramis)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Silent — risky if it pushes enforcement past the 12-month ceiling
Maximum length set by law
12 months (additional time excessive and unnecessary)
Rhode Island applies common-law reasonableness to most workers but bans non-competes for low-wage and several other worker categories (FLSA-nonexempt, student interns, age 18 or younger) and for physicians and APRNs.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-3 (Rhode Island Noncompetition Agreement Act)
Main exceptions
Worker-category bans (low-wage, FLSA-nonexempt, interns, ≤18); physician (§ 5-37-33) and APRN (§ 5-34-50) bans with a 5-year sale-of-practice exception; non-solicits/NDAs/sale excluded from definition
When the ban took effect
Physician/APRN bans eff. June 17, 2024 (worker-category ban date not stated in note)
Can a court narrow it?
Yes — rewrites to reasonable
Applies to contractors?
No
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not addressed
Maximum length set by law
No general statutory length limit; physician/APRN sale-of-practice exception capped at 5 years
South Carolina has no non-compete statute and enforces a covenant only if it meets all five common-law reasonableness factors, strictly construes it against the employer, and will not blue-pencil or reform an overbroad covenant.
Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 717 S.E.2d 103 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) (five-factor test from Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan)
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business reviewed more leniently (Palmetto Mortuary); pending H.4767 physician-ban bill not enacted
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Points against it — extending past stated end date is against public policy (Stonhard)
South Dakota voids restraints on a lawful profession, trade, or business unless they fit a narrowly construed statutory exception, and SDCL 53-9-11 permits an employee non-compete only within its two-year, geographic, existing-customer, and like-business limits.
Tennessee enforces a non-compete that is reasonable and protects a legitimate business interest; a 2026 statute effective July 1, 2026 will void covenants against employees earning under $70,000 and add rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions.
common law (Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984)); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-1-210, 50-1-211 (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934, eff. July 1, 2026)
Texas enforces non-competes that are ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and reasonable in time, geography, and scope, with overbroad covenants reformed rather than voided.
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50 (Covenants Not to Compete Act)
The U.S. Virgin Islands enforces a non-compete only if it is reasonable in duration, area, and scope under a single trial-court decision, and aggressive restraints are hard to enforce in a small-island, non-at-will economy.
Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. 2019) (common law via 1 V.I.C. § 4)
Utah enforces employee non-competes only if they satisfy both the common-law Rose Park reasonableness test and a hard one-year statutory cap, and it bans healthcare and veterinarian non-competes entered on or after May 6, 2026.
Vermont has no general non-compete statute and enforces covenants under a common-law reasonableness test, though a 2025-2026 legislative overhaul (H.205, H.583) could sharply curtail them if enacted.
common law (Vt. Elec. Supply Co. v. Andrus, 132 Vt. 195 (1974); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188)
Main exceptions
Barber/cosmetology training covenants void (26 V.S.A. § 281(c)); attorneys (R. Prof. Conduct 5.6); sale-of-business more leeway; pending H.583 health-care ban not in force
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
Unsettled
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
No equitable rewriting of the time term (Roy's Orthopedic)
Virginia bans non-competes outright for statutory low-wage and FLSA non-exempt employees, while higher-paid workers remain subject to a strict common-law reasonableness test with no judicial blue-penciling.
Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8; common law (Omniplex World Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Investigations Servs., 270 Va. 246 (2005))
Main exceptions
Low-wage/FLSA-non-exempt ban (commission/incentive-earner exclusion); health-care-professional ban and severance-or-disclosed-comp rule eff. July 1, 2026; NDAs/trade-secret preserved
When the ban took effect
Low-wage ban eff. July 1, 2020 (FLSA-non-exempt July 1, 2025; 2026 threshold under $1,507.01/week); health-care ban July 1, 2026
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Yes
Restriction extended during a breach?
Not resolved — strict construction makes an extension clause an overbreadth risk
Maximum length set by law
No statutory limit
Must the employer pay to enforce?
Yes — severance or disclosed pay if fired without cause
Employee non-competes are void unless earnings exceed an inflation-adjusted threshold ($126,858.83 in 2026); a near-total ban takes effect June 30, 2027.
RCW ch. 49.62 (ESHB 1155 ban from 2027)
Main exceptions
Confidentiality, trade-secret, qualifying sale-of-business and franchise covenants; narrow non-solicits
When the ban took effect
Near-total ban effective June 30, 2027 (ESHB 1155)
West Virginia enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Reddy reasonableness test, but a facially unreasonable covenant is void with no judicial narrowing, and a physician statute caps medical covenants at one year and thirty miles.
common law (Reddy v. Cmty. Health Found. of Man, 171 W. Va. 368 (1982))
Main exceptions
Physician covenants capped at one year/30 road miles and void on employer termination (W. Va. Code § 47-11E); sale-of-business lesser scrutiny; non-piracy clauses less restrictive
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
Open question
Maximum length set by law
No general statutory limit; physician covenants capped at 1 year
Wisconsin enforces employee non-competes only if they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest under a demanding five-factor test, and an overbroad covenant is voided in full because courts will not blue-pencil it.
Wis. Stat. § 103.465
Main exceptions
Sale-of-business/equity covenants judged under common-law rule of reason; lawyers barred (SCR 20:5.6)
When the ban took effect
—
Can a court narrow it?
No
Applies to contractors?
Unclear
Restriction extended during a breach?
No — an extension-during-breach clause voids the entire covenant (H&R Block v. Swenson)
For contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, Wyoming voids most employee non-competes that restrict the right to receive compensation for labor, allowing only four narrow statutory exceptions; pre-2025 covenants remain under demanding common law.
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 (2025) (SF 107)
Main exceptions
Four carve-outs: sale-of-business; trade-secret protection; tenure-capped relocation/education/training repayment; executive and management personnel. Separate physician-to-physician practice ban.
When the ban took effect
July 1, 2025 (prospective only; signed Mar 19, 2025)