State-by-State Comparison

Courts narrow overbroad non-competes differently by US state

This page groups US states by whether a court may narrow an overbroad non-compete. The labels match the comparison table and avoid legal shorthand.

Last reviewed

See the full U.S. survey

Court narrowing of non-competes by state (56 jurisdictions)

Yes — courts rewrite to a reasonable scope

JurisdictionSummaryLast reviewed
AlabamaAlabama 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.
AlaskaAlaska 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.
ArkansasArkansas 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.
District of ColumbiaThe 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.
FloridaAmong the most employer-friendly states — enforceable with a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a 2025 CHOICE Act high-earner track.
GeorgiaGeorgia 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.
IdahoIdaho 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.
IllinoisIllinois 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.
IowaIowa 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.
KansasKansas 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.
KentuckyKentucky 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.
MassachusettsMassachusetts 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.
MichiganMichigan 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.
MississippiMississippi 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.
MissouriMissouri 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.
NevadaNevada 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.
New HampshireNew 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.
New JerseyNew 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.
New YorkNew 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.
OhioOhio 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.
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania 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.
Rhode IslandRhode 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.
South DakotaSouth 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.
TennesseeTennessee 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.
TexasTexas 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.
U.S. Virgin IslandsThe 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.
WashingtonEmployee 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.

No narrowing — the covenant stands or falls as written

JurisdictionSummaryLast reviewed
CaliforniaEmployee 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.
DelawareDelaware 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.
GuamGuam 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.
MinnesotaMost 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.
MontanaMontana'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.
NebraskaNebraska 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.
North DakotaNorth Dakota voids employee non-competes by statute, with exceptions only for sale-of-goodwill and owner dissolution or dissociation covenants.
OklahomaOklahoma 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.
OregonAn 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.
Puerto RicoPuerto 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.
South CarolinaSouth 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.
UtahUtah 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.
VirginiaVirginia 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.
West VirginiaWest 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.
WisconsinWisconsin 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.
WyomingFor 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.

Only strikes wording — no rewriting

JurisdictionSummaryLast reviewed
ArizonaArizona 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.
IndianaIndiana 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.
LouisianaLouisiana 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.
MarylandMaryland 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.
North CarolinaNorth 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.

Unsettled

JurisdictionSummaryLast reviewed
American SamoaNo non-compete statute and no on-point case law found in our review; a court would likely apply the Restatement reasonableness test, with local public policy disfavoring broad restraints.
ColoradoColorado 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.
ConnecticutConnecticut enforces employee non-competes only if reasonable under common law, but several occupation-specific statutes cap or void covenants for covered workers.
HawaiiHawaii 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.
MaineMaine 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).
New MexicoNew 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.
Northern Mariana IslandsThe 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.
VermontVermont 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.