Non-compete enforceability checker

General guidance only. Non-compete enforceability depends on exact contract language, your specific state's current law (which is changing rapidly), and the facts of your situation. This tool identifies general factors for discussion with an employment attorney - it doesn't make a final legal determination. See our full disclaimer.

Your non-compete enforceability assessment

Talk to an employment attorney - free

An employment attorney reviews your exact non-compete language against current state law to determine enforceability, and can negotiate a release or defend you if your former employer tries to enforce an overly broad agreement. Free initial consultation in most areas.

Which states ban or restrict non-compete agreements?

California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban most employee non-competes outright, regardless of how reasonable the terms appear. Minnesota banned non-competes for most workers starting in 2023. Colorado significantly restricts them, generally allowing non-competes only for highly compensated workers above a specific income threshold.

Many other states allow non-competes but impose specific requirements: some ban them entirely for low-wage workers, some require advance notice before signing (often before a job offer is made, not after), and some require the employer to pay "garden leave" compensation during the restricted period.

The legal landscape is shifting quickly - the Federal Trade Commission has pursued a nationwide non-compete ban, though its legal status has faced court challenges. Confirm the current status of any proposed federal rule when evaluating your specific situation, since this area is actively evolving. If your non-compete dispute is connected to a termination, also check the wrongful termination screener for overlapping claims.

What makes a non-compete "reasonable" in states that allow them?

Even where non-competes are generally permitted, courts require the restrictions to be reasonable in 3 dimensions: duration (how long the restriction lasts), geographic scope (where it applies), and scope of restricted activity (what specifically is prohibited). A non-compete lasting 5 years covering the entire country for any job in your general field is far more likely to be struck down than one lasting 6 months in your specific metro area for a narrowly defined competing role.

Courts also weigh whether the employer has a legitimate protectable interest - genuine trade secrets, specialized training investment, or significant client relationships the employee developed using company resources - versus simply wanting to prevent ordinary competition. A non-compete that exists purely to prevent a former employee from using general skills and knowledge, without any genuine trade secret or unique client relationship at stake, is more vulnerable to challenge.

Some states apply "blue penciling" - allowing a court to narrow an overly broad non-compete to a reasonable scope rather than voiding it entirely. Others follow a strict "red pencil" rule voiding the entire clause if any part is unreasonable. Check the employment contract generator if you're drafting a new agreement and want to understand what reasonable non-compete language typically looks like.

What is "consideration" and why does it matter for non-competes signed mid-employment?

A contract requires consideration - something of value exchanged - to be valid. When a non-compete is signed at the start of employment, the job offer itself typically serves as consideration. But when an employer asks an existing employee to sign a non-compete mid-employment, many states require additional consideration beyond simply continuing the existing job - a raise, promotion, bonus, or other new benefit.

Some states do treat continued at-will employment itself as sufficient consideration, but a growing number require something more when a non-compete wasn't part of the original hiring terms. If you were asked to sign a non-compete after you were already employed and received nothing new in exchange, this may be a viable challenge to enforceability in your state.

Frequently asked questions

In many states, no - some courts refuse to enforce non-competes against employees who were terminated without cause (as opposed to those who voluntarily resigned), reasoning that it's unfair to restrict someone's ability to earn a living after the employer chose to end the relationship. This isn't universal, and some states enforce non-competes regardless of who initiated the termination, but it's a significant factor many employees don't realize matters. If you were laid off, terminated without cause, or your position was eliminated, this is an important fact to raise with an employment attorney evaluating your non-compete.

If the non-compete is enforceable, the former employer can seek a court injunction preventing you from continuing the competing work, and potentially monetary damages for losses caused by the violation. Some non-competes include liquidated damages clauses specifying a set dollar amount owed for violation, which courts scrutinize for reasonableness just like the underlying restriction. Importantly, a new employer who knowingly hires someone in violation of an enforceable non-compete can sometimes also face liability for "tortious interference" with the contract - which is why many employers ask new hires directly about existing non-compete obligations before extending an offer.

Yes, often more easily than people assume. Before signing, you can negotiate the duration down, narrow the geographic scope, limit it to specifically named competitors rather than an entire industry, or request "garden leave" pay (continued compensation during the restricted period) in exchange for the restriction. Some employers will also agree to convert a non-compete into a narrower non-solicitation agreement (which only restricts poaching clients or employees, not all competing work) if you push back during negotiation. This is far easier to accomplish before signing than trying to challenge the agreement after you've already agreed to it.

Generally yes, if the acquiring company properly assumes the existing employment agreements as part of the transaction - most asset or stock purchase agreements include assignment of existing contracts, including non-competes. Whether this assignment is enforceable against you can depend on your state's law regarding contract assignability and whether your original agreement explicitly permitted assignment to a successor company. In some cases, a merger or acquisition can actually provide grounds to challenge continued enforcement, particularly if the new parent company's business is meaningfully different from your original employer's business that the non-compete was designed to protect.

The FTC has pursued a rule that would ban most employer-employee non-competes nationwide, but its legal status has been contested in federal court, and enforcement has faced significant delays and challenges. As of now, non-compete enforceability is still primarily governed by state law, which varies enormously as described above. Because this is an actively evolving area, confirm the current status of any federal rule with a search or with an employment attorney rather than assuming either that a federal ban is or isn't currently in effect.