# Non-Competes in Kansas[^about] A question-by-question summary of Kansas non-compete law, including the Weber reasonableness test, judicial reformation of overbroad covenants, tolling-during-breach clauses, the SB 241 amendments to K.S.A. 50-163, non-solicitation safe harbors, healthcare covenants, and trade-secret alternatives. ## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Kansas? {#employee-noncompetes} **Short answer.** Yes, when they are reasonable. Kansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary to a lawful contract, reasonable under the circumstances, and not adverse to the public welfare [^weber-governing-standard]. Kansas is a reasonableness state, and it is one of the more employer-friendly jurisdictions in the country. The starting point is not a statute but the common law: a covenant is judged by whether the restraint is reasonable and the employer carries the burden of showing it [^weber-governing-standard]. The Kansas Supreme Court framed the governing rule in *Weber v. Tillman*, a physician case that remains the leading authority on employee covenants. "A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare."[^weber-governing-standard] ## What reasonableness test do Kansas courts apply to non-competes? {#reasonableness-test} **Short answer.** A four-factor test. Kansas courts ask whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest, whether it imposes an undue burden on the employee, whether it injures the public welfare, and whether its time and territory limits are reasonable [^q2-weber-four-factor]. The four factors come from *Weber* and are restated in later cases. "The analysis of whether the noncompetition clause is reasonable evaluates these factors: (1) Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer? (2) Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee? (3) Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare? (4) Are the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant reasonable?"[^q2-weber-four-factor] Enforceability is a question Kansas appellate courts decide without deference to the trial court, so a covenant that reads as reasonable on its face can still be tested fully on appeal [^doan-de-novo]. The public-welfare factor is a real limit, not a formality. In *Caring Hearts*, the Kansas Court of Appeals applied the same four questions to home-health workers and found no public-welfare problem on the facts [^caring-hearts-public-welfare]. ## Will a Kansas court narrow an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it? {#modification-blue-pencil} **Short answer.** Usually it narrows. Kansas courts have long used their equitable power to reduce an overbroad restraint and enforce it as reduced, rather than striking the whole covenant [^eastern-equitable-reduction]. The modern rule has a common-law root. In *Eastern Distributing*, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed a trial court that cut an excessive territory down to what was reasonably necessary and enforced the covenant to that extent. "We think the trial court in the exercise of its equitable powers fairly and reasonably reduced the area restriction to only that which was necessary to protect plaintiff's interest."[^eastern-equitable-reduction] Reformation has a ceiling, though. A court reforms an *unreasonable* term; it may not rewrite a term that was already reasonable. In *Doan*, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred when it cut a reasonable two-year term down to one year [^doan-no-rewrite]. The 2025 statutory amendments add a separate, mandatory reformation command, but it is aimed at the covenants the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act actually governs. K.S.A. 50-163 directs a court to modify and enforce an overbroad covenant that is *not* conclusively presumed enforceable [^q3-ksa-50-163-reform], yet the same statute excludes covenants not to compete from the Act altogether [^q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion]. For a traditional non-compete, the operative reformation authority remains the common-law equity power recognized in *Eastern Distributing*, not the statute. No published Kansas decision has yet construed that exclusion as applied to a non-compete, so this reading rests on the statute's plain text. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Kansas non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/kansas) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Do not rely on reformation as a license to overreach. Kansas will narrow an unreasonable restraint, but *Doan* shows a court will refuse to rewrite a term that is already reasonable, and an employer that drafts too broadly risks getting only the minimum relief a court considers necessary [^doan-no-rewrite][^eastern-equitable-reduction]. ## Does a tolling or extension-during-breach clause extend a Kansas non-compete? {#tolling-during-breach} **Short answer.** Probably not as written. The only Kansas appellate decision on point refused to enforce a clause that tolled the restricted period during breach and during enforcement litigation, treating the resulting open-ended restraint as unreasonable [^doan-tolling-declined]. Many templates add a tolling or extension clause so the employer gets the full benefit of the restricted period even if the former employee competes during it. In *Doan*, the agreement did exactly that, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's refusal to enforce the tolling provision. "The district court did not err, however, when it declined to enforce the noncompete clause's tolling provision."[^doan-tolling-declined] The court's reasoning was about reasonableness, not a technicality. A fixed two-year term was reasonable, but an open-ended extension tied to breach and litigation was not. "While a two-year period is a reasonable restriction under these facts, an indefinite extension of that period is not a reasonable restraint on Arnberger."[^doan-tolling-indefinite] No Kansas case approves judicial or equitable extension of a covenant period either, and there is no Kansas Supreme Court decision on tolling. So an employer should treat the drafted, indefinite tolling clause as a serious enforcement risk and should not assume a Kansas court will add lost time back to the restricted period. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Avoid an open-ended tolling-during-breach-and-litigation clause in a Kansas non-compete. *Doan* refused to enforce one as an unreasonable, potentially indefinite restraint, so a defined and reasonable fixed term is the safer drafting choice [^doan-tolling-declined][^doan-tolling-indefinite]. ## How did the 2025 SB 241 amendments change Kansas restrictive-covenant law? {#sb-241-changes} **Short answer.** They created statutory safe harbors for non-solicitation and owner covenants, not for traditional non-competes. K.S.A. 50-163, as amended in 2025, conclusively presumes certain solicitation covenants enforceable, but it also excludes covenants not to compete from the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act [^q5-ksa-50-163-reasonable][^q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion]. SB 241 (2025 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 74, effective July 1, 2025) amended K.S.A. 50-163. The amendments matter most for non-solicitation and owner covenants, which now get conclusive presumptions of enforceability inside defined limits. The statute frames the baseline as a reasonableness standard. "An arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, understanding or combination is a reasonable restraint of trade or commerce if such restraint is reasonable in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and does not contravene public welfare."[^q5-ksa-50-163-reasonable] For overbroad covenants that the Act does govern, K.S.A. 50-163 now requires reformation rather than voiding [^q5-ksa-50-163-reform]. But the statute carves traditional non-competes out of the Act entirely, alongside franchise agreements [^q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion]. The practical result is that SB 241 did not rewrite Kansas non-compete law; ordinary employee non-competes are still governed by the common-law *Weber* test. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not overstate SB 241 as a non-compete statute. Its conclusive presumptions and statutory reformation command run to non-solicitation and owner covenants, while K.S.A. 50-163 expressly excludes covenants not to compete from the Act, leaving them to the common-law reasonableness analysis [^q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion][^q5-ksa-50-163-reform]. ## Are Kansas non-solicitation covenants conclusively presumed enforceable? {#non-solicitation} **Short answer.** Yes, inside the statutory limits. A written employee customer non-solicit is conclusively presumed enforceable if it is limited to material contact customers and lasts no more than two years [^ksa-50-163-customer-nonsolicit]. K.S.A. 50-163 sets durational and scope limits that, if met, make the covenant conclusively presumed enforceable and not a restraint of trade. For an employee customer non-solicit, the limits are a two-year cap and a material-contact-customer scope. The statute defines who counts as a material contact customer, which is the key scope concept for these covenants. "‘Material contact customer’ means any customer or prospective customer that is solicited, produced or serviced, directly or indirectly, by the employee or owner at issue or any customer or prospective customer about whom the employee or owner, directly or indirectly, had confidential business or proprietary information or trade secrets in the course of the employee's or owner's relationship with the customer."[^ksa-50-163-material-contact] Owner covenants get a longer runway. A written covenant by an owner not to solicit the entity's customers is conclusively presumed enforceable if it is limited to material contact customers and does not run more than four years after the owner's relationship with the business ends [^ksa-50-163-owner-nonsolicit]. The presumption is strong but not absolute. Even for a covenant inside a safe harbor, the statute lets the employee or owner raise any available legal or equitable defense for the court to consider [^ksa-50-163-defenses]. ## What consideration supports a Kansas non-compete? {#consideration} **Short answer.** Continued employment is enough. Kansas does not treat continued employment of an existing at-will employee as inadequate consideration for a covenant signed after hire [^puritan-bennett-consideration]. This matters for covenants rolled out mid-employment. In *Puritan-Bennett*, the Court of Appeals held that an employee's continued employment could support a covenant not to compete and reversed a contrary ruling. "After reviewing these authorities, we hold that continued employment should not as a matter of law be disregarded as consideration sufficient to uphold a covenant not to compete."[^puritan-bennett-consideration] That gives Kansas employers more flexibility than states requiring new, independent consideration such as a bonus or promotion. The covenant still has to be reasonable under *Weber*; sufficient consideration does not cure an overbroad restraint. ## Do special rules apply to Kansas physician and healthcare non-competes? {#healthcare} **Short answer.** No special ban. Kansas evaluates physician covenants under the ordinary reasonableness test, and it recognizes referral sources as a legitimate interest a medical practice may protect [^idbeis-referral-sources]. Kansas has no statute banning healthcare non-competes. Both of the state's leading covenant cases, *Weber* and *Idbeis*, arose in medical practices and enforced the covenants. *Idbeis* is the clearest statement that a medical group may protect referral relationships. "In Kansas, however, the law is clear that referral sources are a legitimate interest which can be protected by a restrictive covenant even in the context of a medical practice."[^idbeis-referral-sources] A 2026 bill, SB 504, would have banned most post-employment non-competes for physicians and mid-level practitioners, but it died in the 2025 to 2026 legislative session without advancing. It signals legislative interest, not a change in the law, so physician covenants in Kansas are still analyzed under the reasonableness test today. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume Kansas has adopted a healthcare non-compete ban. The 2026 proposal did not pass, and current law still enforces a reasonable physician covenant, including protection of referral sources [^idbeis-referral-sources]. ## Are trade-secret and confidentiality protections still available in Kansas? {#trade-secrets} **Short answer.** Yes. The Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act protects trade secrets, and a contractual confidentiality covenant remains available for information that is not a trade secret [^ksa-60-3320-trade-secret][^ksa-60-3326-contract]. The Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, K.S.A. 60-3320 et seq., defines a trade secret in terms of independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts. "‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."[^ksa-60-3320-trade-secret] The Act is the exclusive route for trade-secret recovery. In *Wolfe Electric*, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a tort claim cannot be used to recover for trade-secret misappropriation because the Act preempts it [^wolfe-kutsa-exclusive]. But the Act reaches only trade secrets, and it preserves contractual remedies, so a confidentiality covenant is the tool for protecting valuable information that does not qualify as a trade secret [^ksa-60-3326-contract]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Do not rely on the trade-secret statute to protect ordinary confidential information. *Wolfe Electric* confirms the Act is the exclusive remedy for trade-secret misappropriation, so non-trade-secret information should be protected by a separate, reasonable confidentiality covenant [^wolfe-kutsa-exclusive][^ksa-60-3326-contract]. ## How are Kansas sale-of-business and owner covenants treated? {#sale-of-business} **Short answer.** More favorably than employee covenants. Owner and seller non-solicitation covenants get a four-year statutory safe harbor, covering both no-recruit and customer non-solicitation terms, while a sale-related non-compete is still tested under the common-law reasonableness standard [^q10-ksa-50-163-owner][^q10-ksa-50-163-owner-customer]. K.S.A. 50-163 treats owners and sellers differently from rank-and-file employees. An owner who agrees not to recruit the entity's employees or owners is conclusively presumed enforceable for up to four years. "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, one or more employees or owners of a business entity for the purpose of interfering with the employment or ownership relationship of such employees or owners shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is between a business entity and an owner of the business entity and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity."[^q10-ksa-50-163-owner] The statute defines owner broadly to include sellers of business assets and equity interests, so a buyer protecting purchased goodwill can use the longer owner runway for solicitation covenants [^q10-ksa-50-163-owner-def]. A pure non-compete tied to a sale still falls outside the Act and is judged under *Weber*, where courts generally give sale-of-business restraints more latitude than employee restraints. A 2026 bill, HB 2650, would have voided non-competes on the sale or change in control of an employer, but it also died in the 2025 to 2026 session and is not law. [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Kansas. This article synthesizes Kansas primary law and is not legal advice from a Kansas-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. [^weber-governing-standard]: **Weber v. Tillman** — "A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare." *Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).* [^q2-weber-four-factor]: **Weber v. Tillman** — "The analysis of whether the noncompetition clause is reasonable evaluates these factors: (1) Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer? (2) Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee? (3) Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare? (4) Are the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant reasonable?" *Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).* [^doan-de-novo]: **Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger** — "Kansas appellate courts exercise unlimited review when determining whether a noncompete clause in an employment contract is enforceable as written." *Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).* [^caring-hearts-public-welfare]: **Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Hobley** — "There is no evidence that enforcement of the noncompete agreement is injurious to the public welfare." *Caring Hearts Personal Home Servs., Inc. v. Hobley, 35 Kan. App. 2d 345, 130 P.3d 1215 (2006).* [^eastern-equitable-reduction]: **Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn** — "We think the trial court in the exercise of its equitable powers fairly and reasonably reduced the area restriction to only that which was necessary to protect plaintiff's interest." *Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn, 222 Kan. 666, 567 P.2d 1371 (1977).* [^doan-no-rewrite]: **Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger** — "Because the two-year term was reasonable, the court did not have the discretion to rewrite that term of the agreement." *Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).* [^q3-ksa-50-163-reform]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "If a covenant that is not presumed to be enforceable pursuant to subsection (c) is determined to be overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business interest of the business entity seeking enforcement of the covenant, the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests." *K.S.A. 50-163(b).* [^q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "any franchise agreements or covenants not to compete" *K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6).* [^doan-tolling-declined]: **Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger** — "The district court did not err, however, when it declined to enforce the noncompete clause's tolling provision." *Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).* [^doan-tolling-indefinite]: **Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger** — "While a two-year period is a reasonable restriction under these facts, an indefinite extension of that period is not a reasonable restraint on Arnberger." *Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).* [^q5-ksa-50-163-reasonable]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "An arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, understanding or combination is a reasonable restraint of trade or commerce if such restraint is reasonable in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and does not contravene public welfare." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(1).* [^q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "any franchise agreements or covenants not to compete" *K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6).* [^q5-ksa-50-163-reform]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "If a covenant that is not presumed to be enforceable pursuant to subsection (c) is determined to be overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business interest of the business entity seeking enforcement of the covenant, the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests." *K.S.A. 50-163(b).* [^ksa-50-163-customer-nonsolicit]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "A covenant in writing in which an employee agrees not to solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the employer shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant is between an employer and an employee and does not continue for more than two years following the end of the employee's employment with the employer." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(5).* [^ksa-50-163-material-contact]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "‘Material contact customer’ means any customer or prospective customer that is solicited, produced or serviced, directly or indirectly, by the employee or owner at issue or any customer or prospective customer about whom the employee or owner, directly or indirectly, had confidential business or proprietary information or trade secrets in the course of the employee's or owner's relationship with the customer." *K.S.A. 50-163(g)(2).* [^ksa-50-163-owner-nonsolicit]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, induce, persuade, encourage, service, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3).* [^ksa-50-163-defenses]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "Notwithstanding the presumption of enforceability provided in subsections (c)(2) through (c)(5), an employee or owner shall be permitted to assert any applicable defense available at law or in equity for the court's consideration in a dispute regarding a written covenant." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(7).* [^puritan-bennett-consideration]: **Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Richter** — "After reviewing these authorities, we hold that continued employment should not as a matter of law be disregarded as consideration sufficient to uphold a covenant not to compete." *Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Richter, 8 Kan. App. 2d 311, 657 P.2d 589 (1983).* [^idbeis-referral-sources]: **Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A.** — "In Kansas, however, the law is clear that referral sources are a legitimate interest which can be protected by a restrictive covenant even in the context of a medical practice." *Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755, 112 P.3d 81 (2005).* [^ksa-60-3320-trade-secret]: **K.S.A. 60-3320** — "‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." *K.S.A. 60-3320(4).* [^ksa-60-3326-contract]: **K.S.A. 60-3326** — "This act does not affect: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;" *K.S.A. 60-3326(b)(1).* [^wolfe-kutsa-exclusive]: **Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth** — "This is error because tort causes of action cannot include a claim to recover for trade secrets; KUTSA is the exclusive remedy." *Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth, 293 Kan. 375, 266 P.3d 516 (2011).* [^q10-ksa-50-163-owner]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, one or more employees or owners of a business entity for the purpose of interfering with the employment or ownership relationship of such employees or owners shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is between a business entity and an owner of the business entity and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(2).* [^q10-ksa-50-163-owner-customer]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, induce, persuade, encourage, service, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity." *K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3).* [^q10-ksa-50-163-owner-def]: **K.S.A. 50-163** — "‘Owner’ means a current or former owner or seller of all or any part of the assets of a business entity or any interest in a business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership interest, a membership interest in a limited liability company or a series limited liability company or any other equity interest or ownership interest." *K.S.A. 50-163(g)(3).*