RoutineMetric

State Non-Compete Threshold & Enforceability Screener

With several states completely banning non-compete agreements (and others linking enforceability to inflation-adjusted salary minimums for 2025/2026), compliance is a moving target. Evaluate whether your templates remain legally valid under current state-specific statutes.

Agreement Parameters

The law of the state where the employee performs services typically governs.

Includes base salary, predictable commissions, and bonuses.

How many days before work starts (or signing) is the employee given to review?

Live Diagnostics Report

Screener Result: California

Likely Unenforceable

The agreement violates one or more mandatory statutory bans or high-compensation thresholds in California.

Salary CapN/A (Banned)
Max DurationReasonable
Required NoticeNone
Garden LeaveNo statutory
Critical Red Flags / Failures
  • All employee non-competes are completely banned/void in the state of California under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 et seq..
Statutory Notes & Legal Citation

"All non-compete agreements in employment are void regardless of salary, duration, or worker type. Enacting SB 699/AB 1076 creates civil liability for employers even attempting to write them."

Citation: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 et seq.

2025/2026 Federal Landscape: While the FTC proposed a comprehensive nationwide ban on non-compete agreements, litigation remains ongoing. Employers must first comply with individual state statutes, which often enforce significantly narrower salary exclusions, mandatory notice periods, and garden leave structures.

State-by-State Thresholds Directory

Reference guide detailing minimum thresholds and key rules across the 50 US states.

StateEnforceability Status / BanMin Salary ThresholdNotice RequiredAction
Alabama (AL)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Alaska (AK)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Arizona (AZ)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Arkansas (AR)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
California (CA)Completely BannedNo minimum
Colorado (CO)Salary Cap Linked$127,00014 Days
Connecticut (CT)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Delaware (DE)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
District of Columbia (DC)Salary Cap Linked$150,00014 Days
Florida (FL)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Georgia (GA)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Hawaii (HI)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Idaho (ID)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Illinois (IL)Salary Cap Linked$75,00014 Days
Indiana (IN)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Iowa (IA)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Kansas (KS)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Kentucky (KY)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Louisiana (LA)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Maine (ME)Salary Cap Linked$60,00010 Days
Maryland (MD)Salary Cap Linked$65,000No minimum
Massachusetts (MA)Reasonableness TestNone14 Days
Michigan (MI)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Minnesota (MN)Completely BannedNo minimum
Mississippi (MS)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Missouri (MO)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Montana (MT)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Nebraska (NE)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Nevada (NV)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
New Hampshire (NH)Salary Cap Linked$31,2001 Days
New Jersey (NJ)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
New Mexico (NM)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
New York (NY)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
North Carolina (NC)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
North Dakota (ND)Completely BannedNo minimum
Ohio (OH)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Oklahoma (OK)Completely BannedNo minimum
Oregon (OR)Salary Cap Linked$116,50014 Days
Pennsylvania (PA)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Rhode Island (RI)Salary Cap Linked$38,000No minimum
South Carolina (SC)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
South Dakota (SD)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Tennessee (TN)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Texas (TX)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Utah (UT)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Vermont (VT)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Virginia (VA)Salary Cap Linked$75,000No minimum
Washington (WA)Salary Cap Linked$124,11614 Days
West Virginia (WV)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Wisconsin (WI)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Wyoming (WY)Reasonableness TestNoneNo minimum
Bottom Banner Ad (728x90)

Understanding US Non-Compete Thresholds & Enforceability for 2025/2026

Managing non-compete agreements across a modern, distributed workforce is a complex legal and regulatory challenge. In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly replaced traditional common law rules with rigid statutory frameworks. Rather than leaving the interpretation of "reasonableness" entirely to the courts, a growing number of states have instituted strict salary floors, procedural requirements, or outright bans on restrictive covenants.

1. Complete State Bans: California, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and North Dakota

The most radical shift in the legal landscape is the rise of comprehensive statutory bans. California has historically led this charge under Business and Professions Code Section 16600, declaring virtually all post-employment non-compete agreements void. California laws SB 699 and AB 1076 expanded on this, making it a civil violation for employers to even offer or solicit a void non-compete covenant, giving employees the right to sue for damages.

In July 2023, Minnesota enacted a complete ban on covenants not to compete for both employees and independent contractors, regardless of income. Oklahoma and North Dakota enforce similarly comprehensive bans, rendering traditional non-competes fully void.

2. The Rise of Inflation-Indexed Salary Thresholds

To protect lower- and middle-wage workers, many key jurisdictions have tied non-compete validity directly to the employee's annual compensation. If an employee earns less than the state's minimum statutory threshold, any covenant not to compete is void on its face.

  • Washington: Annually indexes its salary cap. For 2025, non-competes are void unless an employee earns over $124,116.42, or an independent contractor earns over $310,291.07.
  • Colorado: Banned non-competes for all workers except highly compensated employees (making at least $127,000 for 2025/2026).
  • Oregon: Limits enforceability to exempt employees earning more than an inflation-adjusted floor, which is approximately $116,500.
  • Illinois: Prohibits non-compete agreements for workers earning $75,000 or less per year, and non-solicitation covenants for workers earning $45,000 or less.

3. Notice Periods & Procedural Protections

Even when an employee meets the required salary threshold, procedural failures can quickly void the agreement. States like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon mandate that the employee must receive the full text of the non-compete agreement in writing at least 14 days before commencing employment or before the covenant takes effect. In Massachusetts, employers must provide the agreement at least 10 business days before employment begins or when the offer is formally extended.

4. "Garden Leave" Requirements

Massachusetts and Oregon have pioneered mandatory "garden leave" clauses. Under Massachusetts law, if an employer wishes to enforce a post-employment non-compete restriction, they must pay the former employee at least 50% of their highest annualized base salary during the entire duration of the restriction (or provide "other mutually agreed-upon consideration," which is strictly construed by courts).

Disclaimer & Legal Notice

This compliance screener is designed to offer corporate counsel and HR managers rapid diagnostic insights based on the statutory logic of current 2025/2026 state-level updates. It does not constitute formal legal advice. Legislative mandates change rapidly, and courts frequently modify standard common-law evaluations. For critical template designs, always consult with qualified labor and employment counsel licensed in the worker's jurisdiction.