Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
For contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, usually no. Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) voids most labor non-competes unless the covenant fits a statutory exception.
The statute covers covenants that restrict the right of any person to receive compensation for skilled or unskilled labor. State-specific commentary treats the 2025 law as a broad restriction rather than a narrow drafting adjustment.
The practical reading is that a standard post-employment employee non-compete should not be reused in Wyoming after the effective date unless it is deliberately drafted into one of the remaining statutory categories.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) supports the rule that most labor non-competes are void unless an enumerated exception applies.
Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025) (SF 107, Enrolled Act No. 87).
Law-firm commentary
A.2 Ogletree Deakins commentaryOgletree supports the broad-ban framing and the July 1, 2025 effective date.
Wyoming enacted legislation that will void noncompete agreements with employees with limited exceptions.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
A.3 Faegre Drinker commentaryFaegre Drinker supports the statement that the statutory ban has four carveouts.
The law prohibits any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor unless it falls under one of four statutory exceptions
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
A.4 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports treating routine post-employment non-competes as generally void after the effective date unless an exception applies.
New Wyoming law voids most non-compete agreements.
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Law-firm commentary
A.5 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the broad shift from Wyoming's pre-statute practice.
Wyoming's sweeping prohibition marks a clear departure from the state's previous permissive approach to non-compete agreements.
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
A.6 Holland & Hart commentaryHolland & Hart supports the employer-side caution that even exceptions do not make enforcement automatic.
Employers still have an uphill battle to enforce a covenant not to compete in court.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Does Wyoming's non-compete ban apply to independent contractors?
Likely yes under the dominant 2025 commentary, but that is still an interpretation rather than a Wyoming appellate holding.
The reason is the statutory phrase any person. State-specific commentary reads that wording broadly enough to reach independent contractors, not only W-2 employees.
That is a strong drafting assumption for Wyoming templates, but a careful note should still say that Wyoming courts have not yet issued a controlling appellate decision on the contractor question.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.4 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)PDFThe statute uses 'any person,' not only 'employee,' which supports the independent-contractor reading.
Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
B.1 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports the reading that the Act can reach workers regardless of status.
The Act contains language broad enough to make most non-compete covenants with workers void regardless of a worker's status as an employee or an independent contractor
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Law-firm commentary
B.2 Faegre Drinker commentaryFaegre Drinker supports the conclusion that 'any person' includes employees and independent contractors.
Given that the law applies this restriction to agreements with any "person," this bans noncompete agreements with both employees and independent contractors
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
B.3 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the comparison to Colorado-style language and the broad application to 'any person.'
any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor...several provisions closely mirror language found in Colorado's prior non-compete statute
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
What law governs Wyoming non-compete agreements signed before July 1, 2025?
Older agreements continue to be judged under Wyoming common law, because the 2025 act does not alter earlier contracts.
That does not mean older Wyoming non-competes are easy to enforce. Wyoming common law uses traditional enforceability elements: the covenant must be written, part of an employment contract, supported by reasonable consideration, reasonable in duration and geography, and not against public policy.
Wyoming cases also strictly construe non-competes and put the burden on the employer to prove special circumstances that make the restraint reasonably necessary. For a post-hire covenant, continued employment alone is not enough consideration.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 SF 107 § 2(b)PDFSF 107 § 2(b) supports the prospective-only treatment of contracts entered into before July 1, 2025.
Nothing in this act shall be construed to alter, amend or impair any contract or agreement entered into before July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, § 2(b), 68th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2025).
Case law
C.2 Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc.Malave supports the traditional Wyoming common-law enforceability elements for non-competes.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Case law
C.3 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLCBrown supports strict construction and the employer's burden to justify a restraint.
Contracts which hinder them from doing so are "strictly construed and rigidly scanned and are declared void unless necessary for the reasonable protection of the employer."
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Case law
C.4 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLCBrown supports the separate-consideration rule for post-hire Wyoming non-competes.
when an employer requests an existing employee sign a non-compete agreement, the employer must provide "separate contemporaneous consideration" for the new promise
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Can Wyoming courts blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?
No. The Wyoming Supreme Court rejected blue-penciling for non-compete agreements.
The court held that the entire agreement was void because the duration and geographic terms were unreasonable. That makes overbreadth more expensive in Wyoming than in states where courts may trim an unreasonable covenant down to an enforceable scope.
Do not assume a Wyoming court will rescue an overbroad covenant by narrowing it later. That caution applies to legacy agreements and to new agreements drafted inside a statutory exception .
Sources for this answer
Case law
D.1 Hassler v. Circle C ResourcesHassler supports the no-blue-pencil rule and the consequence that the overbroad agreement was void.
Wyoming courts will no longer exceed the scope of their traditional authority in contract interpretation by redrafting noncompete agreements to bring them within the bounds of reason.
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.
Law-firm commentary
D.2 Holland & Hart commentaryHolland & Hart supports the practical employer-side warning that drafting overbreadth remains risky even inside exceptions.
Since a 2022 Wyoming Supreme Court decision, Wyoming courts are no longer authorized to revise an unreasonable covenant to make it reasonable.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
What non-compete restrictions are still allowed in Wyoming after July 1, 2025?
Four categories remain in play: sale-of-business covenants, trade-secret covenants, capped repayment provisions, and covenants with executive and management personnel and their professional staff.
The four statutory carveouts are listed in Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a). The repayment carveout is not a blank check; it is capped by the employee's tenure, with lower recovery percentages as service length increases.
A statutory exception is not a license for loose drafting. Employer-side commentary still points to reasonable scope and legitimate business fit ; commentary also treats the breadth of the trade-secret exception as an open question .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
E.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(i)–(iv)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(i)–(iv) supports the four statutory carveouts and the repayment schedule.
This subsection shall not apply to: (i) Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(i)–(iv) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
E.2 Holland & Hart commentaryHolland & Hart supports the caution that employers still need reasonable scope and a legitimate business fit.
the new law leaves Wyoming businesses with a few options to continue to use those covenants, employers need to move quickly
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Law-firm commentary
E.3 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports the caution that the practical breadth of the trade-secret exception remains uncertain.
How expansive the trade secret exception will turn out to be waits to be seen.
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Are customer non-solicitation agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
Unclear. The safer Wyoming-specific answer is not always valid or always void; it depends on whether the covenant functions like a prohibited non-compete.
Brownstein takes the employer-friendly view that customer non-solicitation covenants remain intact . Fisher Phillips warns that Wyoming courts still must decide whether customer non-solicits are covered covenants not to compete under the new text .
For drafting, separate a narrow customer-relationship restriction from language that prevents the person from earning compensation in a field, territory, or role. The closer the clause gets to a work ban, the more non-compete risk it carries .
Sources for this answer
Law-firm commentary
F.1 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck commentaryBrownstein supports the employer-friendly view that non-solicitation and non-recruitment restrictions are not affected.
However, non-solicitation, non-recruitment and confidentiality restrictions remain unaffected.
See Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Wyoming Adopts Statutory Limits for Noncompetes (2025).
Law-firm commentary
F.2 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the caution that customer non-solicits may need judicial classification under the new statute.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Are employee non-solicitation agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
Not clearly. Wyoming's statute does not create an express employee non-solicit exception.
Commentary says the omission leaves the issue unclear . Other commentary groups employee non-solicits with adjacent restraints that Wyoming courts may eventually have to classify .
The practical drafting approach is to treat employee non-solicits as unsettled if they work as a de facto restriction on the departing person's ability to perform skilled or unskilled labor.
Sources for this answer
Law-firm commentary
G.1 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports the point that the Act does not include an express non-solicit carveout and that the omission leaves uncertainty.
Noticeably absent are any express exceptions for non-solicit restrictions such as covenants prohibiting the solicitation of customers or the solicitation of other employees
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Law-firm commentary
G.2 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the broader caution for customer, employee, confidentiality, and anti-moonlighting provisions.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Are confidentiality agreements or NDAs enforceable if they function like a Wyoming non-compete?
Ordinary confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements are more likely to remain enforceable, but broad clauses that operate like a work restriction are riskier.
Brownstein says the statute does not affect nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements . Fisher Phillips warns that courts still may need to decide whether broad confidentiality provisions are really prohibited non-compete covenants under another name .
Use confidentiality clauses to protect confidential information, not to prevent someone from working in a role, industry, or geography. The broader the definition of protected information, the more the clause begins to look like a non-compete substitute .
Sources for this answer
Law-firm commentary
H.1 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck commentaryBrownstein supports the more employer-friendly view that nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements are not affected by the statute.
However, non-solicitation, non-recruitment and confidentiality restrictions remain unaffected.
See Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Wyoming Adopts Statutory Limits for Noncompetes (2025).
Law-firm commentary
H.2 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the caution that broad confidentiality provisions may be litigated as covered restraints.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Are anti-moonlighting clauses risky under Wyoming's non-compete law?
Potentially. A narrow conflict-of-interest rule is different from a broad ban on outside work, but the statutory text creates risk for clauses that restrict compensation for labor.
The statute focuses on covenants that restrict compensation for skilled or unskilled labor . Fisher Phillips specifically flags anti-moonlighting provisions as one of the adjacent covenant types Wyoming courts may need to classify under the 2025 statute .
This is useful to keep separate from non-competes because many employers do not call those clauses non-competes, even when they restrict outside work in a way that starts to resemble one.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
I.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) supports the statutory focus on restrictions on compensation for skilled or unskilled labor.
Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
I.2 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the classification caution for anti-moonlighting clauses and other adjacent restraints.
For instance, will customer non-solicitation covenants fall into this definition? Employee non-solicitation covenants? Broad confidentiality agreements? "Anti-moonlighting" agreements
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Can a Wyoming non-compete prevent a physician from practicing medicine?
For physician-to-physician agreements covered by the statutory text, no. Wyoming separately voids a physician non-compete that restricts the right to practice medicine after termination.
The statute also allows a departing physician to share continuing practice and new professional contact information with rare-disorder patients, without liability to the prior counterparty .
The harder question is the phrase between physicians. Commentary flags that wording as an open statutory question for contracts with hospitals or other non-physician entities. The careful statement is that Wyoming clearly voids physician-to-physician practice restraints and leaves the outer scope of physician-employer application less certain.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
J.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)–(c)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)–(c) supports the physician practice restriction rule and the rare-disorder patient contact rule.
Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement between physicians that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine ... is void
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)–(c) (2025).
Primary law
J.4 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)PDFThe phrase "between physicians" supports the open statutory question for hospital or non-physician-entity contracts.
Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement between physicians ... is void
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
J.2 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports the caution that the "between physicians" phrase may not cover contracts between physicians and hospitals.
The language in this subparagraph suggests that the restriction only intends to limit non-compete provisions in contracts entered into "between physicians,"
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Law-firm commentary
J.3 Holland & Hart commentaryHolland & Hart supports the same physician open-question caution from a Wyoming-focused employer perspective.
This language suggests that the law intends to invalidate covenants not to compete entered into between physicians who are members of or employed by a medical practice owned by physicians, and not those contracts with hospitals or other types of entities.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Can Wyoming employers bind executives or managers to non-competes under the statutory exception?
Possibly, but the exception is not self-defining. Wyoming allows covenants with executive and management personnel and their professional staff, but the statute does not define those terms.
The statutory exception covers executive and management personnel. Commentary flags the drafting gap , and other commentary points to Colorado cases as possible nonbinding guidance because Colorado once used similar language.
Those comparisons point toward function over title: supervision, autonomy, hiring or firing authority, and a meaningful role in implementing management functions. A manager label alone is not the safest basis for the Wyoming exception.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
K.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) supports the existence of the executive, management, and professional-staff exception.
Executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
K.2 Faegre Drinker commentaryFaegre Drinker supports the point that the terms are undefined and the exception's scope remains open.
The statute does not define the terms "executive and personnel management" or "professional staff," so which specific employees would qualify for this exemption is an open question
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
K.3 Fisher Phillips commentaryFisher Phillips supports the Colorado analogy and the focus on actual duties.
This analysis should focus on actual job responsibilities – not just job titles.
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
K.4 Holland & Hart commentaryHolland & Hart supports using Colorado cases as nonbinding guidance and preserving a reasonableness analysis.
Whether Wyoming courts will follow those definitions remains to be seen.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Can Wyoming employers recover relocation, education, or training expenses from departing employees?
Yes, but only within the statutory schedule. The longer the employee stays, the less the employer can recover.
Wyoming permits recovery of up to 100% of relocation, education, and training expenses if the employee served less than two years; up to 66% after at least two but less than three years; and up to 33% after at least three but less than four years. The repayment schedule does not provide an additional recovery tier after that.
Draft this as an expense-recovery provision, not as a disguised penalty for competition. Tie the amount to actual relocation, education, or training expense and the statutory percentages.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
L.1 Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii)PDFWyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii) supports the repayment schedule and the categories of recoverable expense.
Any contractual provision providing for the recovery of all or a portion of the expense of relocating, educating and training an employee as follows
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii) (2025).
Law-firm commentary
L.2 Ogletree Deakins commentaryOgletree supports the same tiered repayment schedule in employer-facing commentary.
The law permits employers to include provisions in employment contracts allowing them to recover relocation, education, and training expenses
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
L.3 Faegre Drinker commentaryFaegre Drinker supports the repayment exception and the need to update templates for compliance.
Recovery of not more than 100% of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two years.
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Do employers need to update Wyoming restrictive covenant templates after July 1, 2025?
Yes. The new statute turns template rollover into a legal risk point, especially if an older covenant might have remained enforceable under common law.
Wyoming-specific commentary treats SF 107 as a major narrowing of employer practice, not a minor drafting tweak . Employers should review non-compete templates, offer letters, incentive agreements, physician agreements, non-solicits, NDAs, anti-moonlighting clauses, and repayment provisions together.
Commentary specifically warns employers to evaluate routine replacement or updating programs because a new agreement after July 1, 2025 may replace something that was enforceable with something void . The common-law cases also mean that even old-law Wyoming covenants required careful drafting.
Sources for this answer
Law-firm commentary
M.1 Ogletree Deakins commentaryOgletree supports employer review and revision of restrictive covenant practices after the new law.
Employers using noncompete agreements may want to consider whether those provisions are being applied in one of the specifically enumerated exceptions.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Law-firm commentary
M.2 Littler Mendelson commentaryLittler supports the rollover-warning point for routine agreement updates after the effective date.
Employers in Wyoming will need to evaluate routine replacement or updating programs that put a new non-compete agreement in place
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Case law
M.3 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLCBrown supports the strict-construction and separate-consideration baseline for pre-2025 covenants.
Continued employment is not sufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement.
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Case law
M.4 Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc.Malave supports the five-element common-law test.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Case law
M.5 Hassler v. Circle C ResourcesHassler supports the no-blue-pencil drafting risk.
By rejecting the liberal blue pencil rule, we encourage employers to incorporate only reasonable trade restraints into their employment contracts
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.
What recent developments changed Wyoming non-compete law?
Wyoming moved from a mostly common-law regime to a broad prospective statutory ban with enumerated exceptions.
March 19, 2025: Governor Mark Gordon signed Senate File 107, creating Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 and adding physician-specific rules .
July 1, 2025: The new statute took effect for contracts entered into on or after that date. Earlier contracts were not altered, amended, or impaired by the act .
2021–2022 backdrop: Wyoming's common-law baseline was already demanding because of strict construction, consideration, and no-blue-pencil cases.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
N.2 SF 107 §§ 1–3PDFSF 107 supports the creation of Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108, the July 1, 2025 effective date, and prospective application.
This act shall apply to contracts entered into on and after July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, §§ 1–3, 68th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2025).
Law-firm commentary
N.1 Ogletree Deakins commentaryOgletree supports the employer-facing summary of the effective date and new limits.
The new legislation, which will take effect on July 1, 2025, applies to contracts entered into on or after that date.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Case law
N.3 Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLCBrown supports the strict-construction and consideration backdrop for Wyoming non-competes.
A non-compete provision "is prima facie invalid
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Case law
N.4 Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc.Malave supports the common-law elements for older covenants.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Case law
N.5 Hassler v. Circle C ResourcesHassler supports the no-blue-pencil rule that made drafting error more expensive before the statute.
The entire agreement is void in violation of public policy.
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.