Non-Compete Laws by State: Where You Can Still Bind a Technician, and the Clauses That Actually Protect Your Customer List

Alabama Enforceable, 2-Year Presumption

Statute: Ala. Code § 8-1-190 to -197

Rule: Alabama’s 2016 statute allows non-competes that protect a listed “protectable interest” (trade secrets, confidential information, customer relationships, specialized training) and are reasonable in time and area; two years or less is presumed reasonable, and courts may blue-pencil longer ones. Professionals (doctors, lawyers, veterinarians) are exempt. Agreements must be signed by the employee and supported by continued employment.

Enforcement: Court enforcement by injunction; the statute shifts the burden to the employee to show a presumptively reasonable term is unreasonable.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Alaska Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Data Mgmt. v. Greene, 1988)

Rule: No statute. Courts enforce non-competes that are reasonable in duration, area and scope and protect a legitimate interest, and will rewrite an overbroad one if the employer drafted it in good faith. Alaska has no wage threshold.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages in superior court.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Arizona Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 1999); A.R.S. § 23-494 (broadcasters)

Rule: No general statute; the only statutory ban covers broadcast employees. Courts enforce reasonable non-competes but scrutinize them strictly, require a protectable interest beyond keeping a worker from competing, and will blue-pencil but not rewrite. Six months to a year with a metro-area radius is the typical limit a court will accept for a service tech.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; Arizona courts refuse to enforce agreements written in bad faith.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Arkansas Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Ark. Code § 4-75-101

Rule: Arkansas’s 2015 statute makes non-competes enforceable if the employer has a protectable business interest and the restriction is reasonable; two years is presumptively reasonable, and courts must reform an overbroad agreement rather than void it. Separate 2025 laws bar non-competes for physicians and limit them for accountants, engineers and architects. No wage threshold.

Enforcement: Court enforcement with mandatory reformation of overbroad terms.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

California Banned (All Employees)

Statute: Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, 16600.1, 16600.5

Rule: Every contract restraining anyone from a lawful profession, trade or business is void, regardless of where it was signed or where the employee lived at the time (§ 16600.5, 2024). The only exceptions are the sale of a business or dissolution of a partnership or LLC. Employers were required to notify current and former employees by February 14, 2024 that any non-compete in their files is void, and including one in a contract is an unfair competition violation. Customer non-solicitation clauses are generally void too (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, 2008); only trade-secret protection survives.

Penalty / enforcement: Employees may sue for injunctive relief, actual damages and attorney fees under § 16600.5; the Labor Commissioner and private plaintiffs enforce. A 2026 amendment extends the ban to management of private-equity-owned medical and dental practices.

Trades note: A California HVAC shop can’t stop a tech from joining the competitor across town or from calling customers he served; it can stop him from taking the customer database. See California employment laws for trade employers.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Colorado Banned Under $130,014

Statute: C.R.S. § 8-2-113

Rule: Since August 10, 2022, non-competes are void unless the worker earns at least the “highly compensated” threshold ($130,014 in 2026, indexed) and the agreement protects trade secrets and is no broader than necessary; customer non-solicits need 60% of that threshold ($78,008). The employer must give a separate, clear notice (in a stand-alone document, signed) before the employee accepts the offer or 14 days before it takes effect. Choice-of-law and forum clauses pointing outside Colorado are void for Colorado workers.

Penalty / enforcement: $5,000 per worker in penalties plus actual damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees; presenting a void non-compete is itself a violation. Few trades employees clear the threshold, so Colorado is effectively a ban for techs, installers and dispatchers.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Connecticut Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Scott v. General Iron, 1976); Gen. Stat. § 20-14p (physicians), § 31-50a (security guards), § 31-71g (homemaker companions), § 31-50b (broadcasters)

Rule: No general statute; Connecticut’s five-factor reasonableness test (duration, area, employee hardship, public interest, employer protection) governs, with statutory limits only for physicians, security guards, broadcast employees and home-care companions. A general ban bill has passed committee several sessions without becoming law.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; courts will not blue-pencil unless the agreement allows it.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Delaware Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law; 6 Del. C. § 2707 (physicians)

Rule: No general statute (physician non-competes are void). Chancery Court enforces reasonable non-competes but has refused since 2022 to blue-pencil overbroad ones, voiding agreements that reach beyond the employee’s actual territory or the employer’s actual business. A nationwide restriction on a local service tech fails outright.

Enforcement: Chancery injunction; overbroad agreements are struck, not trimmed.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

District of Columbia Banned Under $162,164

Statute: D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq. (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act)

Rule: Since October 1, 2022, non-competes are void for employees earning under $162,164 (2026, indexed; $270,274 for medical specialists). For higher earners the agreement must be in writing 14 days before signing, specify the restricted services, area and period (one year maximum), and include the statutory notice. Employers may still bar moonlighting that creates a conflict of interest or discloses confidential information, if the policy is written.

Penalty / enforcement: Administrative penalties of $350 to $1,000 per violation, relief to the employee of $500 to $3,000 per violation (more for retaliation), plus private suits. Virtually every trades employee in DC is under the threshold.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Florida Enforceable; CHOICE Act for High Earners

Statute: Fla. Stat. § 542.335; § 542.41–.45 (CHOICE Act)

Rule: Florida is the most employer-friendly state. Section 542.335 directs courts to enforce reasonable non-competes protecting a legitimate business interest, presumes six months or less reasonable and more than two years unreasonable for employees, bars courts from considering the employee’s hardship, and requires blue-penciling. The 2025 CHOICE Act adds, for employees earning more than twice the county’s annual mean wage, “covered” non-competes of up to four years with a seven-day review period and mandatory preliminary injunctions (the employee must post a bond and prove unenforceability by clear and convincing evidence).

Enforcement: Injunctions are routine; the CHOICE Act makes them nearly automatic for covered high earners. Techs and dispatchers are below the CHOICE threshold but fully subject to § 542.335.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Georgia Enforceable, 2-Year Presumption

Statute: O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq. (Restrictive Covenants Act)

Rule: Since May 2011, non-competes are enforceable against employees who sell, solicit, manage or hold key positions (not rank-and-file workers), for a reasonable time (two years presumed reasonable) and area, and courts may blue-pencil. Customer non-solicits need no geographic limit if confined to customers the employee actually dealt with. The Georgia Supreme Court in 2024 (North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer) voided a no-hire clause for lacking a geographic limit.

Enforcement: Court enforcement with blue-penciling; the “key employee” requirement excludes most hourly techs.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Hawaii Banned in Tech; Enforceable Elsewhere

Statute: HRS § 480-4(d)

Rule: Non-competes and non-solicits are void for employees of “technology businesses” (since 2015). For everyone else, common-law reasonableness applies; Hawaii courts enforce narrowly drawn agreements with a protectable interest.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; the technology-business ban is enforced through the antitrust statute with treble damages.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Idaho Key Employees Only (18 Months)

Statute: Idaho Code § 44-2701 to -2704

Rule: Non-competes are enforceable only against “key employees” and “key independent contractors” (the top 5% by pay, or those with access to confidential information or customer goodwill whose departure would cause real harm), for 18 months or less, with the employer required to prove the restriction is reasonable. The 2018 repeal of the presumption of harm put the burden back on the employer.

Penalty / enforcement: Court enforcement by injunction; a service tech or installer is rarely a key employee, so Idaho operates as a ban for most trades staff.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Illinois Banned Under $75,000 ($80,000 in 2027)

Statute: 820 ILCS 90 (Freedom to Work Act)

Rule: Since January 1, 2022, non-competes are void for employees earning $75,000 or less a year (rising to $80,000 on January 1, 2027), and customer non-solicits for those earning $45,000 or less ($47,500 in 2027). Also void for construction employees (other than management, engineers and sales), union members under a CBA, and workers laid off due to COVID-19 absent severance. The employer must advise the employee in writing to consult a lawyer and give 14 days to review, and must provide adequate consideration (two years of employment or other value).

Penalty / enforcement: Attorney fees to a prevailing employee; the Attorney General may seek $5,000 per violation ($10,000 for repeats within five years). The construction carve-out means most Illinois trades employers can’t use non-competes for field staff regardless of pay.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Indiana Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law; Ind. Code § 25-22.5-5.5 (physicians)

Rule: No general statute (physician non-competes are limited since 2023 and barred for primary care). Courts enforce reasonable non-competes strictly construed against the employer and will blue-pencil only by striking divisible terms, never rewriting. S.B. 132 (2026) would ban non-competes under $150,000 but hasn’t passed.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; overbroad terms are struck, not trimmed.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Iowa Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law; Iowa Code § 135Q.3 (mental health), § 135P (temporary health staffing)

Rule: No general statute. Courts enforce non-competes that are reasonably necessary to protect the employer, not unduly harsh on the employee and not against the public interest, and will modify overbroad terms. Statutory bans cover mental health professionals and agency health workers only.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages with judicial modification.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Kansas Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Weber v. Tillman, 1996)

Rule: No statute. Kansas courts enforce non-competes that protect a legitimate interest (customer contacts, confidential information, training), aren’t unduly burdensome, and don’t harm the public, and will modify overbroad terms. Two years and a service-area radius is routinely upheld.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; one of the more employer-friendly common-law states.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Kentucky Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Charles T. Creech v. Brown, 2014); KRS § 216.2975 (healthcare)

Rule: No general statute. Non-competes need independent consideration (continued employment alone isn’t enough after Creech), must be reasonable, and may be reformed by the court. Healthcare worker protections were added in 2024.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; consideration failures void many mid-employment agreements.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Louisiana Enforceable, 2 Years, Parishes Listed

Statute: La. R.S. 23:921

Rule: Non-competes are void unless they fit the statute exactly: two years maximum from termination, and the restricted parishes, municipalities or parts thereof must be listed in the agreement and be places where the employer actually does business. A clause that says “within 50 miles” or names no parishes fails. Physicians (primary care, 2025) and car salespeople have separate limits.

Enforcement: Strict construction by Louisiana courts; non-compliant agreements are void in full, though courts may sever an unlisted parish.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Maine Banned Under $63,840

Statute: 26 M.R.S. § 599-A

Rule: Since September 2019, non-competes are void for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level ($63,840 in 2026), presumed necessary only to protect trade secrets, confidential information or goodwill, and can’t take effect until one year of employment or six months after signing, whichever is later. The employer must disclose the non-compete in the job posting or before the offer and give three business days to review.

Penalty / enforcement: Civil penalty of at least $5,000 per violation enforced by the Department of Labor, plus private claims. Most trades employees in Maine fall under the threshold.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Maryland Banned Under $49,920 (150% Min. Wage)

Statute: Md. Lab. & Empl. § 3-716

Rule: Non-competes are void for employees earning 150% of the state minimum wage or less ($22.50 an hour, about $49,920 a year, since 2023), and since 2025 for most healthcare providers earning $350,000 or less and veterinary staff. Above the threshold, common-law reasonableness applies and Maryland courts blue-pencil only by striking.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; the Department of Labor accepts complaints and courts award fees in wage-related claims. Helpers, apprentices and many techs fall under the threshold.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Massachusetts Banned for Non-Exempt; 12 Months, Garden Leave

Statute: M.G.L. c. 149, § 24L (Noncompetition Agreement Act)

Rule: Since October 1, 2018, non-competes are void for non-exempt (hourly) employees, students, employees 18 and under, and anyone laid off or terminated without cause. For exempt employees they must be in writing, signed by both, provided with the offer or 10 business days before the start date, advise the right to counsel, last no more than 12 months, be limited to areas where the employee worked in the last two years, and include garden leave of at least 50% of base pay during the restriction (or other agreed consideration). Suffolk County Superior Court has jurisdiction over disputes.

Penalty / enforcement: Agreements that miss any element are void; the garden-leave requirement makes enforcing against a departing manager expensive. Hourly techs can’t be bound at all.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Michigan Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: MCL § 445.774a

Rule: Michigan’s statute allows non-competes that protect a reasonable competitive business interest and are reasonable in duration, area and type of work, and directs courts to limit (not void) unreasonable terms. One year and the service territory is routinely enforced. H.B. 4040 (2025), a near-total ban, is pending.

Enforcement: Court enforcement with judicial narrowing; among the easier states to enforce in.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Minnesota Banned (All Employees)

Statute: Minn. Stat. § 181.988

Rule: Every non-compete entered on or after July 1, 2023 is void, for employees and independent contractors alike, regardless of pay. Exceptions only for the sale or dissolution of a business. Choice-of-law and forum clauses that would apply another state’s law to a Minnesota worker are void. Pre-July 2023 agreements remain subject to the old reasonableness test. Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements are expressly still allowed.

Penalty / enforcement: Employees may sue for injunctive relief and attorney fees; including a non-compete in a new agreement is a violation.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Mississippi Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Empiregas v. Bain, 1992)

Rule: No statute. Mississippi courts enforce non-competes reasonable in time and area that protect a legitimate interest, weighing hardship to the employee, and will modify overbroad terms. Considered a moderately employer-friendly state.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages with judicial modification.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Missouri Enforceable; Statute on Non-Solicits

Statute: RSMo § 431.202

Rule: Missouri’s statute presumes customer and employee non-solicitation covenants of one year or less reasonable, and bars non-competes for secretarial and clerical employees. Other non-competes follow common law: reasonable time (two years commonly upheld), area and a protectable interest (customer contacts, trade secrets). Courts may modify overbroad terms.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; the clerical carve-out covers dispatchers and office staff.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Montana Restrictive Statute; Narrow Enforcement

Statute: MCA § 28-2-703 to -705

Rule: Montana’s statute voids contracts in restraint of trade except for the sale of a business or partnership dissolution, but the Montana Supreme Court allows reasonable employee non-competes that are limited in time and area, protect a legitimate interest and don’t harm the public, and refuses to blue-pencil overbroad ones. Agreements tied to termination without cause are generally unenforceable.

Enforcement: Overbroad agreements fail entirely; the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act adds exposure if the non-compete is used to force a resignation.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Nebraska Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (H&R Block v. Lovelace, 2000)

Rule: No statute, and one of the strictest common-law states: Nebraska courts enforce only restrictions limited to soliciting customers the employee actually dealt with, and refuse to blue-pencil, so a true non-compete (don’t work for a competitor) is almost never enforced. A customer non-solicit limited to the tech’s own accounts is the ceiling.

Enforcement: Overbroad agreements are void in full.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Nevada Banned for Hourly Workers

Statute: NRS 613.195

Rule: Since October 1, 2021, non-competes are void for employees paid solely on an hourly basis (excluding tips and gratuities), which covers most techs and installers. For salaried employees, the agreement needs valuable consideration, must be reasonable in scope and duration, can’t bar serving customers the employee didn’t solicit who leave voluntarily, and is unenforceable after a layoff unless the employer pays through the restricted period. Courts must blue-pencil overbroad terms.

Penalty / enforcement: An employer that sues to enforce a non-compete against an hourly employee owes the employee’s attorney fees. Nevada’s hourly rule makes it a de facto ban for field staff.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

New Hampshire Banned for Low-Wage; Notice Before Offer

Statute: RSA 275:70, 275:70-a

Rule: Non-competes are void for “low-wage employees” earning 200% of the federal minimum wage or less ($14.50 an hour), and for all employees the employer must provide a copy of the non-compete before the offer is accepted (or before a change in job classification), or it’s unenforceable. Physicians and, since 2025, certain healthcare workers have separate limits. Above the threshold, common-law reasonableness applies.

Penalty / enforcement: Agreements without pre-offer notice are void; the wage threshold is low enough that it mainly catches helpers and entry-level staff.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

New Jersey Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Solari Industries v. Malady, 1970); N.J.S.A. 45:14B-? (psychologists)

Rule: No general statute despite years of pending bills (S.1688 would ban most non-competes). Courts enforce agreements that protect a legitimate interest, impose no undue hardship and don’t injure the public, and will blue-pencil to make them reasonable; courts weigh the employee’s skill level and whether the termination was without cause.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages with judicial reformation.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

New Mexico Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law; NMSA § 24-1I-1 to -5 (healthcare)

Rule: No general statute (healthcare practitioner non-competes are void since 2015, with a 2024 expansion). Courts enforce reasonable non-competes with a protectable interest and will modify overbroad terms.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

New York Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 1999); Labor Law § 202-k (broadcasters)

Rule: No general statute. The Governor vetoed a near-total ban in December 2023; a revised bill with a $500,000 threshold has passed the Senate in later sessions without becoming law. Courts enforce non-competes only to the extent needed to protect trade secrets, confidential information or the goodwill of a unique employee, and partially enforce overbroad ones when the employer acted in good faith. A rank-and-file service tech is rarely “unique.”

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; New York courts routinely decline to enforce against terminated-without-cause employees.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

North Carolina Enforceable; Written, Consideration Required

Statute: N.C.G.S. § 75-4; common law

Rule: Non-competes must be in writing, signed, and supported by consideration (a new job, or a raise or bonus for an existing employee, since continued employment alone isn’t enough); they must be reasonable in time (two years is the practical ceiling) and territory, and protect a legitimate interest. North Carolina courts strictly apply the blue-pencil rule: they strike distinctly severable terms but never rewrite.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; overbroad territories (states where the employee never worked) are struck.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

North Dakota Banned (All Employees)

Statute: N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06

Rule: Every contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void, except in the sale of a business or dissolution of a partnership, a rule North Dakota has had since 1865 and copied from California. Courts refuse to enforce out-of-state non-competes against North Dakota employees. Customer non-solicits are generally void too; confidentiality and trade-secret agreements survive.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; employees can seek declaratory relief and fees.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Ohio Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 1975)

Rule: No statute. Ohio courts enforce non-competes that are no greater than needed to protect the employer, don’t impose undue hardship and don’t injure the public, weighing a nine-factor test, and will modify overbroad terms. A 2025 Senate bill to ban most non-competes stalled.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages with judicial modification; among the more employer-friendly common-law states.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Oklahoma Banned (Non-Solicits Allowed)

Statute: 15 O.S. § 217–219B

Rule: Contracts restraining a lawful profession, trade or business are void (§ 217), with exceptions for the sale of goodwill and partnership dissolution. Section 219A allows only an agreement that the former employee won’t directly solicit established customers of the former employer; any broader restriction is void. Section 219B voids employee no-hire agreements.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; courts strike the non-compete and enforce only a compliant non-solicit. Oklahoma voters and legislators have left this untouched for decades.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Oregon Banned Under $119,541; 12 Months

Statute: ORS 653.295

Rule: Non-competes are void unless the employee earns more than $119,541 (2026, indexed), is exempt (salaried), was told in writing at least two weeks before the start date (or the agreement came with a bona fide advancement), has access to trade secrets or competitively sensitive information, and receives a signed copy within 30 days after termination. Maximum duration is 12 months. Below the threshold the employer can still enforce if it pays the greater of 50% of salary or 50% of the threshold during the restriction. Independent contractors under $250,000 can’t be bound.

Penalty / enforcement: Non-compliant agreements are void; BOLI accepts complaints and employees may sue. Nearly every Oregon trades employee is under the threshold.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Pennsylvania Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Hess v. Gebhard, 2002); Act 74 of 2024 (healthcare)

Rule: No general statute (healthcare practitioner non-competes are limited to one year since 2025). Non-competes must be ancillary to employment, supported by consideration (a new job, or new value for an existing employee, since Socko 2015), and reasonable; courts may blue-pencil. Pennsylvania courts weigh the employee’s skill and whether the employer terminated the employee.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; the consideration requirement voids many agreements signed mid-employment without a raise or bonus.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Rhode Island Banned for Non-Exempt and Under $39,900

Statute: R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-1 to -3

Rule: Since January 2020, non-competes are void for non-exempt (hourly) employees, students, employees 18 and under, those earning 250% of the federal poverty level or less ($39,900 in 2026), and nurses. Low-wage and hourly carve-outs cover nearly every field tech. Agreements with other employees follow common-law reasonableness and Rhode Island courts enforce them cautiously.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; employees can seek declaratory relief and fees.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

South Carolina Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Rental Uniform Service v. Dudley, 1983)

Rule: No statute. Non-competes must be supported by consideration, reasonable in time and area, and protect a legitimate interest; South Carolina courts refuse to blue-pencil, so an overbroad agreement is void in full. A restriction with no geographic limit is per se unenforceable unless tied to specific customers.

Enforcement: Overbroad agreements fail entirely; courts won’t rewrite.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

South Dakota Enforceable, 2-Year Statutory Cap

Statute: SDCL § 53-9-11 to -12

Rule: South Dakota’s statute allows an employee non-compete of up to two years after termination within a specified area where the employer does business, and allows customer non-solicits; healthcare providers have separate 2024 limits. Agreements outside the statute are void.

Enforcement: Court enforcement; terms beyond two years are unenforceable.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Tennessee Banned Under $70,000 (July 2026)

Statute: Tenn. Code § 50-1-210, 50-1-211 (HB 1034, 2026)

Rule: For agreements signed on or after July 1, 2026, non-competes are void for employees earning less than $70,000 in annualized compensation (hourly rate times 40 times 52, plus commissions and nondiscretionary bonuses). Above the threshold, a two-year restriction is presumed reasonable and anything longer presumed unreasonable (three years for distributors and franchisees, five for a business sale), with courts allowed to modify. Pre-July 2026 agreements follow the old reasonableness test and the 2007 physician statute still applies to doctors.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; courts reform rather than strike agreements over the presumption. Most Tennessee techs and helpers are under $70,000.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Texas Enforceable With Reformation

Statute: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50–15.52

Rule: Texas enforces non-competes that are ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement (the employer must give consideration tied to the restraint, usually confidential information or specialized training) and reasonable in time, area and scope. Courts must reform an overbroad agreement to make it reasonable rather than void it, but the employer then recovers no damages for breach before reformation. Physicians have buyout rights; a 2025 law added limits for other healthcare practitioners. No wage threshold, and bills to add one have died.

Enforcement: Injunction after reformation; among the easiest states to enforce in, though a two-year, service-territory restriction is the practical ceiling. See our Texas guide.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Utah Enforceable, 1-Year Cap

Statute: Utah Code § 34-51-101 et seq. (Post-Employment Restrictions Act)

Rule: Since May 2016, employee non-competes may last no more than one year after termination; longer agreements are void. Broadcast employees have wage-based limits and healthcare platforms can’t require non-competes from health workers (2025). Non-solicits and confidentiality agreements aren’t capped. An employer that loses an enforcement suit pays the employee’s fees and damages. H.B. 203 (2026), a broader ban, is pending.

Enforcement: Court enforcement within the one-year cap; fee-shifting against employers who overreach.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Vermont Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Common law (Summits 7 v. Kelly, 2005)

Rule: No statute (bills to ban non-competes have passed the House in several sessions without becoming law). Vermont courts enforce non-competes that are reasonable and protect a legitimate interest, strictly construed against the employer, and will modify overbroad terms.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Virginia Banned for Low-Wage and All Non-Exempt

Statute: Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8

Rule: Since July 1, 2020, non-competes are void for “low-wage employees”: anyone earning less than the state average weekly wage ($1,507.01 a week, about $78,365 in 2026) and, since July 1, 2025, anyone entitled to overtime under the FLSA regardless of pay. Employers must post the statute. Agreements may still bar soliciting customers the employee worked with. From July 1, 2026, a non-compete can’t be enforced against an employee discharged without severance, and healthcare workers get separate limits.

Penalty / enforcement: Civil penalties of $10,000 per violation enforced by DOLI, plus private suits for damages, liquidated damages and fees. Every hourly tech in Virginia is covered.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Washington Banned Under $126,859; Full Ban June 30, 2027

Statute: RCW 49.62; ESHB 1155 (2026)

Rule: Since January 1, 2020, non-competes are void for employees earning $126,858.83 or less (2026, indexed) and independent contractors earning $317,147.09 or less, must be disclosed in writing before acceptance, can’t exceed 18 months, and require garden-leave pay for laid-off employees. Employers may not bar moonlighting for workers under twice the minimum wage. ESHB 1155, signed in 2026, makes every non-compete unenforceable on and after June 30, 2027, regardless of pay or when it was signed. Customer non-solicits (limited to current customers) and confidentiality agreements survive.

Penalty / enforcement: $5,000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) plus attorney fees, payable by an employer that enforces or attempts to enforce a void agreement; L&I and private plaintiffs enforce.

Trades note: Washington shops should convert any remaining non-competes to non-solicit and confidentiality terms before mid-2027; see new laws taking effect in 2027.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

West Virginia Enforceable; Physicians Limited

Statute: Common law (Reddy v. Community Health Foundation, 1982); W. Va. Code § 47-11E (physicians)

Rule: No general statute (physician non-competes are limited to one year and 30 miles). Non-competes must be reasonable in time and area and protect a legitimate interest; West Virginia courts apply a “rule of reason” and may modify overbroad terms, but presume unreasonable any restriction on a rank-and-file employee who had no special training or customer contact.

Enforcement: Injunction and damages; one year and the county of employment is a typical ceiling.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Wisconsin Common-Law Reasonableness

Statute: Wis. Stat. § 103.465

Rule: Wisconsin’s statute enforces non-competes only if reasonably necessary to protect the employer, and voids any agreement with even one unreasonable term in full, with no blue-penciling. A nationwide or indefinite restriction on a local tech voids the whole document. Bills to void most non-competes (A.B. 567, 2025) are pending.

Enforcement: All-or-nothing: one overbroad clause voids the entire covenant.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.

Wyoming Banned (July 2025) With Exceptions

Statute: Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 (SF 107, 2025)

Rule: Non-competes entered on or after July 1, 2025 are void, except for the sale of a business, protection of trade secrets, recovery of training expenses for employees of less than four years, and executive and management personnel and their professional staff. Physician non-competes are void with a patient-notice requirement. Pre-July 2025 agreements remain subject to the old reasonableness test.

Penalty / enforcement: Void agreements are unenforceable; a field tech can’t be bound unless the agreement is genuinely limited to trade secrets.

What still works: customer non-solicitation and no-hire clauses (narrowly drawn), confidentiality and trade-secret agreements covering customer lists and pricing, and return-of-property terms. In every state those are easier to enforce against a departing tech than a non-compete, and in the ban states they’re the only option.