open-agreements 0.7.6 → 0.7.7

package/skills/non-compete-contract-explainer/content/louisiana.md

@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+---
+jurisdiction: "Louisiana"
+slug: louisiana
+countryCode: US
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/louisiana
+license: CC BY 4.0
+stale: false
+---
+
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Informational only — not legal advice.** This is a snapshot of an OpenAgreements practice note,
+> provided for general information. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client
+> relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
+> Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
+>
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/louisiana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+
+# Non-Competes in Louisiana[^about]
+
+A question-by-question summary of Louisiana non-compete law under La. R.S. 23:921, including the default rule of nullity, the parish-naming geographic requirement, the two-year cap, the bar on judicial reformation, the prospective-employee timing trap, employee non-solicitation after Brown & Root v. Farris, the void choice-of-law rule, the 2025 physician burn-off limits, the 2026 intern and apprentice ban, and trade-secret alternatives.
+
+
+## At a glance
+
+| Question | Louisiana |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Are non-competes enforceable?** | Allowed if reasonable |
+| **Bottom line** | Louisiana voids every non-compete by default and enforces one only if it fits a narrow statutory exception with named parishes and a two-year cap, so most out-of-state templates fail. |
+| **Main law or case** | La. R.S. 23:921 |
+| **Main exceptions** | Employee exception (subsection C, 2-yr/named parishes); sale of business; physician burn-off limits; automobile salesmen banned; intern/apprentice ban (Aug 1, 2026) |
+| **Can a court narrow it?** | Only strikes wording |
+| **Applies to contractors?** | Unclear |
+| **Restriction extended during a breach?** | Silent — likely barred by 2-year cap |
+| **Maximum length set by law** | 2 years from termination (employee covenant) |
+
+## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Louisiana? {#employee-noncompetes}
+
+**Short answer.** Only inside a narrow statutory lane. Louisiana starts from the position that any agreement restraining a lawful profession, trade, or business is null and void, and it enforces a non-compete only when the agreement fits one of the relationship-based exceptions the statute spells out [^rs-23921-a1].
+
+Louisiana is not a reasonableness state. Unlike most jurisdictions, it does not ask whether a restraint is fair under the circumstances; it asks whether the agreement complies with the exact text of a single statute, La. R.S. 23:921. The statute opens with a flat declaration of nullity, subject only to the exceptions it then lists.
+
+"Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void."[^rs-23921-a1]
+
+Because the covenant is a statutory exception to a public-policy rule, Louisiana courts construe it strictly against the employer. The Louisiana Supreme Court made that the governing posture in *SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond* [^swat24-strict-construction].
+
+"Because such covenants are in derogation of the common right, they must be strictly construed against the party seeking their enforcement."[^swat24-strict-construction]
+
+The practical consequence is that an out-of-state template will almost never survive in Louisiana. A covenant that reads as perfectly reasonable elsewhere is void here if it misses a statutory requirement, because reasonableness is not the test.
+
+## What geographic and durational limits must a Louisiana non-compete meet? {#geography-duration}
+
+**Short answer.** Named parishes and no more than two years. An employee non-compete must identify the specific parishes or municipalities where it applies and may not run longer than two years from the end of employment [^rs-23921-c]. A mileage radius does not satisfy the parish-naming requirement [^amcom-radius].
+
+The employee exception in subsection C is the most litigated part of the statute. It permits a covenant only within named geography where the employer actually does business, and only for a capped period.
+
+"Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the employer and/or from soliciting customers of the employer within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment."[^rs-23921-c]
+
+The geographic rule is the single most common drafting trap. Louisiana requires the agreement to list parishes or municipalities by name; a radius around an office does not count. In *AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson*, the court rejected a restriction defined by a seventy-five-mile radius as overly broad [^amcom-radius].
+
+"We agree with the trial court's factual finding that the geographical area encompassed within a 75-mile radius of Shreveport or Bossier City makes this employment agreement overly broad."[^amcom-radius]
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not define the restricted territory by a mileage radius or a generic catch-all such as *any parish where the employer does business*. Louisiana requires named parishes or municipalities, and a radius was struck down as overly broad in *AMCOM* [^amcom-radius][^rs-23921-c].
+
+## Does a tolling or extension-during-breach clause extend a Louisiana non-compete? {#tolling-during-breach}
+
+**Short answer.** It should not be relied on. The statute caps the restraint at two years from termination, and Louisiana's strict-construction and no-reformation rules leave no room for a clause that pushes the restriction past that ceiling by adding back time spent in breach or litigation [^q3-rs-23921-c][^q3-teamenv-no-reform].
+
+Many national 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. Louisiana law is not friendly to that device. The statutory cap is fixed: the restraint may run for no more than two years measured from termination [^q3-rs-23921-c], not from the date competition stops or a judgment issues.
+
+Because the two-year ceiling is statutory and the covenant is strictly construed, a Louisiana court has no general power to lengthen the restriction. The federal Fifth Circuit, applying Louisiana law in *Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. Addison*, vacated an injunction on a covenant that violated the statute and held that the agreement could not be rewritten to comply [^q3-teamenv-no-reform].
+
+"Finding that the agreement violates the controlling Louisiana statute and may not be reformed, we vacate the injunction and render judgment for the defendants."[^q3-teamenv-no-reform]
+
+No Louisiana statute or appellate decision authorizes judicial tolling of the period, so the safest reading is that an extension-on-breach clause that would carry the restraint beyond two years from termination is unenforceable to that extent. There is no Louisiana Supreme Court decision squarely approving or rejecting a contractual tolling clause, so this conclusion rests on the statutory cap and the strict-construction rule rather than a case directly on tolling.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not assume a Louisiana court will add time back to a non-compete for a period of breach or litigation. The statute fixes a two-year ceiling measured from termination, and courts will not reform a covenant to extend it [^q3-rs-23921-c][^q3-teamenv-no-reform].
+
+## Will a Louisiana court narrow an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it? {#reformation}
+
+**Short answer.** Only by severing, never by rewriting. A court will not add or substitute language to save a defective covenant; at most it may strike an offending portion under a severability clause and enforce what independently complies with the statute [^q4-teamenv-no-reform][^brock-severance].
+
+Louisiana courts have far less blue-pencil power than courts in reasonableness states. The starting point is that a non-compete violating the statute cannot be reformed into compliance, as the Fifth Circuit held in *Team Environmental* [^q4-teamenv-no-reform].
+
+There is a limited exception. Where the agreement contains a severability clause, a court may delete an invalid component and enforce the remainder, provided the surviving terms independently satisfy the statute. In *Brock Services, L.L.C. v. Rogillio*, the Fifth Circuit applied Louisiana law to enforce a covenant whose territory had been narrowed to comply, while restating that such covenants are disfavored and strictly construed [^brock-severance].
+
+A note on vocabulary: some Louisiana opinions use the word *reform* to describe this permitted excision of offending language under a severability clause, while others, like *Team Environmental*, use *reform* to mean rewriting a covenant into compliance, which is not allowed. The distinction that matters is functional rather than verbal: a court may strike an invalid term, but it may not add or substitute language to manufacture a compliant restraint.
+
+"Restrictive covenants are unfavored in Louisiana and are narrowly and strictly construed."[^brock-severance]
+
+The drafting lesson is the opposite of the strategy that works in reformation states. Casting a wide net in the hope a judge will trim it down is a high-risk approach in Louisiana, where the more likely outcome is total nullity of the non-compliant provision.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not draft an intentionally broad Louisiana covenant expecting a court to narrow it. A court will not rewrite a defective restraint; severance helps only when the surviving terms already comply with the statute [^q4-teamenv-no-reform][^brock-severance].
+
+## Must the employment relationship already exist when a Louisiana non-compete is signed? {#prospective-employee}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, or the agreement must be carefully dated. A non-compete signed before the employment relationship exists is unenforceable, though a Louisiana appellate court has allowed one signed pre-start when it carries an effective date on or after the first day of work [^rouses-prospective][^annison-effective-date].
+
+The statute's employee exception applies to a person who *is employed* by the employer. The Fifth Circuit took that text seriously in *Rouses Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Clapp*, refusing to enforce a covenant a worker signed before he was actually employed [^rouses-prospective].
+
+"Because Clapp was not employed by Rouses when he signed the agreement, it is unenforceable under Louisiana law."[^rouses-prospective]
+
+A later Louisiana First Circuit decision, *Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Annison*, distinguished *Rouses* and supplied a drafting fix. There the employees signed before starting, but each agreement fixed an effective date equal to the employee's first day of work [^annison-effective-date].
+
+"But Annison and Cates expressly agreed with Gallagher that the effective date of their employment agreements was the date each commenced their respective employment."[^annison-effective-date]
+
+Because the employment relationship existed as of that effective date, the timing of the signature did not void the covenants, which is the opposite of the result in *Rouses*.
+
+On consideration, Louisiana is a civil-law state, so the question is framed as lawful cause rather than common-law consideration. Continued at-will employment generally suffices, as in *Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd*, where the covenant the court analyzed was signed as a condition of continued employment [^cellone-continued-employment], so an employer ordinarily need not pay a separate bonus to bind an existing employee.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not have a candidate sign a Louisiana non-compete during the interview or application stage. *Rouses* held a pre-employment covenant unenforceable; if a prospective employee must sign before the start date, the agreement should state an effective date on or after the first day of work [^rouses-prospective][^annison-effective-date].
+
+## Are employee non-solicitation (anti-poaching) clauses governed by La. R.S. 23:921? {#employee-nonsolicitation}
+
+**Short answer.** No, but they still need a durational limit. A 2024 Louisiana appellate decision held that an employee non-solicitation, or anti-poaching, clause is not governed by the non-compete statute, yet must be reasonable in scope and duration, and a clause with no end date can fail [^farris-not-governed].
+
+Louisiana practice historically treated solicitation restrictions as subject to the same strict statutory rules as non-competes. The First Circuit changed that for *employee* anti-poaching clauses in *Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris*, reasoning that restricting whom a former employee may recruit does not restrain that worker's own trade.
+
+"However, a contract by a former employee not to solicit employees of his former employer, like Promise Number 9, is not governed by La. R.S. 23:921."[^farris-not-governed]
+
+Falling outside the statute is not a free pass. The *Farris* court held that such clauses must still satisfy a common-law reasonableness standard.
+
+"Nevertheless, a review of the limited cases analyzing employee non-solicitation provisions reflects that courts have required that these non-solicitation provisions be reasonable in scope and duration, which we also find to be a necessary requirement and therefore applicable to our analysis of Promise Number 9."[^farris-reasonable]
+
+Applying that requirement, the court refused to enforce the clause because the agreement fixed no end date for the restriction at all.
+
+"In fact, the entire Agreement is devoid of any language, wording, or indication as to the duration of the terms of the contract."[^farris-no-duration]
+
+This distinction matters in drafting. A *customer* non-solicit still operates as a restraint on the former employee's trade and is generally treated under the strict 23:921 framework, while an *employee* anti-poaching clause is judged for reasonableness but must carry a clear end date.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not leave a Louisiana employee anti-poaching clause open-ended. Even though *Farris* placed such clauses outside La. R.S. 23:921, it refused to enforce one whose agreement was devoid of any durational limit [^farris-not-governed][^farris-no-duration].
+
+## Can an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause sidestep Louisiana non-compete law? {#choice-of-law}
+
+**Short answer.** No. A choice-of-forum or choice-of-law clause in a Louisiana employee's contract is null and void unless the employee ratifies it after the dispute has already arisen [^rs-23921-a2].
+
+A common strategy for multistate employers is to choose the law of a more employer-friendly state. Louisiana closed that door directly in the statute. Subsection A(2) voids forum and choice-of-law clauses in employment contracts except in a narrow ratification scenario.
+
+"(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement...shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action."[^rs-23921-a2]
+
+The ratification exception is rarely available in practice, because an employee almost never agrees, after a dispute has begun, to be governed by another state's more restrictive law. For a Louisiana resident, the realistic planning assumption is that Louisiana law will apply regardless of the contract's choice-of-law clause.
+
+## Do special rules apply to Louisiana physician non-competes? {#physician-noncompetes}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, since 2025. A physician non-compete now runs from the date the contract is signed, not from termination, and it is capped at three years for primary care physicians and five years for other physicians [^rs-23921-m][^rs-23921-n].
+
+Act 273 of 2024 added physician-specific limits to La. R.S. 23:921, effective January 1, 2025. These rules differ structurally from the ordinary employee covenant: the clock starts at contract execution, a so-called burn-off period, rather than at the end of employment. For a primary care physician, the cap is three years.
+
+"Any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains a primary care physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed three years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement."[^rs-23921-m]
+
+For any other physician, the cap is five years from the same starting point.
+
+"For any physician other than a primary care physician as defined in Subsection M of this Section, any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains the physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed five years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement."[^rs-23921-n]
+
+The statute also narrows the geography for physician covenants and exempts certain rural and federally qualified health-center arrangements. Because the burn-off period runs from signing rather than separation, a physician who stays past the burn-off window may no longer be subject to any enforceable restraint, which is the opposite of the ordinary post-termination model.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not apply the ordinary two-year, post-termination model to a Louisiana physician covenant. Since January 1, 2025, the period runs from the contract's effective date and is capped at three years for primary care and five years for other physicians [^rs-23921-m][^rs-23921-n].
+
+## Which Louisiana professions have their own non-compete carve-outs? {#profession-carveouts}
+
+**Short answer.** Several. Automobile salesmen cannot be subject to a non-compete at all, real estate licensees get a three-day rescission right, and as of August 1, 2026, interns and apprentices are protected by a new statutory ban [^rs-23921-i][^rs-37-1448][^act150-intern].
+
+Beyond the general framework, the legislature has carved out specific occupations. Automobile salesmen are protected by a categorical bar inside the statute itself.
+
+"There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an automobile salesman and his employer restraining him from selling automobiles."[^rs-23921-i]
+
+Real estate brokers and licensees are governed by a separate statute that makes a non-compete an absolute nullity unless the licensee receives a short rescission window.
+
+"A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee...shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later."[^rs-37-1448]
+
+The newest carve-out covers interns and apprentices. Act 150 of 2026, enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P) effective August 1, 2026, bars non-competes for interns and apprentices outright [^act150-intern].
+
+"There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or apprentice and his employer restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer."[^act150-intern]
+
+Lawyers are separately constrained by the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, which generally bar agreements restricting a lawyer's right to practice after the relationship ends.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not use a standard non-compete for an automobile salesman, a real estate licensee, an intern, or an apprentice. Each has a specific statutory rule: salesmen and, as of August 1, 2026, interns and apprentices cannot be restrained at all, and a real estate licensee must receive a third-business-day rescission right [^rs-23921-i][^act150-intern][^rs-37-1448].
+
+## How are Louisiana sale-of-business covenants treated? {#sale-of-business}
+
+**Short answer.** Under the same statute, on a separate track. The buyer of a business's goodwill may restrain the seller from competing within named parishes for up to two years from the sale [^rs-23921-b].
+
+The sale-of-goodwill exception sits in subsection B and mirrors the employee rule's structure: named geography, a like-business requirement, and a two-year cap, but measured from the date of sale rather than termination of employment.
+
+"Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer that the seller or other interested party in the transaction, will refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to the business being sold or from soliciting customers of the business being sold within a specified parish or parishes, or municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from the date of sale."[^rs-23921-b]
+
+Because these covenants are negotiated between commercial parties rather than imposed on an individual worker, they are often easier to enforce in practice, but they still must satisfy the same parish-naming and two-year requirements. Louisiana has also extended comparable treatment to partners, corporate shareholders, and LLC members, each capped at two years from the end of the ownership relationship.
+
+## Are trade-secret and confidentiality protections available in Louisiana? {#trade-secrets}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes. The Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act allows a court to enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation, and a confidentiality agreement remains available because it does not restrain a person from working [^rs-51-1432].
+
+Because non-competes are so hard to enforce, Louisiana employers frequently rely on trade-secret and confidentiality protections instead. The Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides injunctive relief independent of any covenant.
+
+"Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined."[^rs-51-1432]
+
+A confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is not subject to the parish-naming and two-year limits of La. R.S. 23:921 because it restricts the use of information rather than the right to work. The important caveat is that an employer cannot use a confidentiality clause as a disguised non-compete; if an agreement is so broad that it effectively prevents the former employee from working in the field, a court is likely to treat it as a non-compete and apply the statute.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not draft a confidentiality agreement so broadly that it functions as a disguised non-compete. The trade-secret statute protects information and supports an injunction against misappropriation, but a confidentiality clause that effectively bars the employee from working risks being treated as a non-compete under La. R.S. 23:921 [^rs-51-1432][^q11-rs-23921-a1].
+
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Louisiana. This article synthesizes Louisiana primary law and is not legal advice from a Louisiana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+
+[^rs-23921-a1]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^swat24-strict-construction]: **SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond** — "Because such covenants are in derogation of the common right, they must be strictly construed against the party seeking their enforcement." *SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 808 So. 2d 294 (La. 2001).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1860745/swat-24-shreveport-bossier-inc-v-bond/#:~:text=Because%20such%20covenants%20are%20in,the%20party%20seeking%20their%20enforcement.>
+
+[^rs-23921-c]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the employer and/or from soliciting customers of the employer within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment." *La. R.S. 23:921(C).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^amcom-radius]: **AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson** — "We agree with the trial court's factual finding that the geographical area encompassed within a 75-mile radius of Shreveport or Bossier City makes this employment agreement overly broad." *AMCOM of La., Inc. v. Battson, 666 So. 2d 1227 (La. Ct. App. 1996).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1094717/amcom-of-louisiana-inc-v-battson/#:~:text=We%20agree%20with%20the%20trial,this%20employment%20agreement%20overly%20broad.>
+
+[^q3-rs-23921-c]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment." *La. R.S. 23:921(C).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^q3-teamenv-no-reform]: **Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. Addison** — "Finding that the agreement violates the controlling Louisiana statute and may not be reformed, we vacate the injunction and render judgment for the defendants." *Team Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Addison, 2 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 1993).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5925/team-environmental-services-inc-v-addison/#:~:text=Finding%20that%20the%20agreement%20violates,render%20judgment%20for%20the%20defendants.>
+
+[^q4-teamenv-no-reform]: **Team Environmental Services, Inc. v. Addison** — "Finding that the agreement violates the controlling Louisiana statute and may not be reformed, we vacate the injunction and render judgment for the defendants." *Team Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Addison, 2 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 1993).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5925/team-environmental-services-inc-v-addison/#:~:text=Finding%20that%20the%20agreement%20violates,render%20judgment%20for%20the%20defendants.>
+
+[^brock-severance]: **Brock Services, L.L.C. v. Rogillio** — "Restrictive covenants are unfavored in Louisiana and are narrowly and strictly construed." *Brock Servs., L.L.C. v. Rogillio, 936 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2019).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4656603/brock-services-llc-v-richard-rogillio/#:~:text=Restrictive%20covenants%20are%20unfavored%20in,are%20narrowly%20and%20strictly%20construed.>
+
+[^rouses-prospective]: **Rouses Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Clapp** — "Because Clapp was not employed by Rouses when he signed the agreement, it is unenforceable under Louisiana law." *Rouses Enters., L.L.C. v. Clapp, No. 21-30293 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2022).* <https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-30293.0.pdf>
+
+[^annison-effective-date]: **Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Annison** — "But Annison and Cates expressly agreed with Gallagher that the effective date of their employment agreements was the date each commenced their respective employment." *Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Annison, 391 So. 3d 1089 (La. Ct. App. 2024).* <https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/116265798.html>
+
+[^cellone-continued-employment]: **Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd** — "Defendants signed these agreements as a condition of their continued employment." *Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 653 So. 2d 30 (La. Ct. App. 1995).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1154814/cellular-one-inc-v-boyd/#:~:text=Defendants%20signed%20these%20agreements%20as,condition%20of%20their%20continued%20employment.>
+
+[^farris-not-governed]: **Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris** — "However, a contract by a former employee not to solicit employees of his former employer, like Promise Number 9, is not governed by La. R.S. 23:921." *Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).* <https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/116318576.html>
+
+[^farris-reasonable]: **Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris** — "Nevertheless, a review of the limited cases analyzing employee non-solicitation provisions reflects that courts have required that these non-solicitation provisions be reasonable in scope and duration, which we also find to be a necessary requirement and therefore applicable to our analysis of Promise Number 9." *Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).* <https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/116318576.html>
+
+[^farris-no-duration]: **Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris** — "In fact, the entire Agreement is devoid of any language, wording, or indication as to the duration of the terms of the contract." *Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).* <https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/116318576.html>
+
+[^rs-23921-a2]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement...shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^rs-23921-m]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains a primary care physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed three years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement." *La. R.S. 23:921(M)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^rs-23921-n]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "For any physician other than a primary care physician as defined in Subsection M of this Section, any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains the physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed five years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement." *La. R.S. 23:921(N)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^rs-23921-i]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an automobile salesman and his employer restraining him from selling automobiles." *La. R.S. 23:921(I)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^rs-37-1448]: **La. R.S. 37:1448.1** — "A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee...shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later." *La. R.S. 37:1448.1(A).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=93285>
+
+[^act150-intern]: **La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (H.B. 315)** — "There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or apprentice and his employer restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer." *La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P)), eff. Aug. 1, 2026.* <https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1475140>
+
+[^rs-23921-b]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Any person, including a corporation and the individual shareholders of such corporation, who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer that the seller or other interested party in the transaction, will refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to the business being sold or from soliciting customers of the business being sold within a specified parish or parishes, or municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from the date of sale." *La. R.S. 23:921(B).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+
+[^rs-51-1432]: **La. R.S. 51:1432** — "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined." *La. R.S. 51:1432(A).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=104049>
+
+[^q11-rs-23921-a1]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>

package/skills/non-compete-contract-explainer/content/maine.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+---
+jurisdiction: "Maine"
+slug: maine
+countryCode: US
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maine
+license: CC BY 4.0
+stale: false
+---
+
+> [!IMPORTANT]
+> **Informational only — not legal advice.** This is a snapshot of an OpenAgreements practice note,
+> provided for general information. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client
+> relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
+> Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
+>
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maine · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+
+# Non-Competes in Maine[^about]
+
+Maine regulates employee non-competes through 26 M.R.S. § 599-A, using statutory bright-line limits plus Maine common-law reasonableness and as-applied review.
+
+
+## At a glance
+
+| Question | Maine |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Are non-competes enforceable?** | Allowed above a pay level |
+| **Bottom line** | Maine treats non-competes as contrary to public policy and enforces them only when reasonable, and bans them entirely for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level (and for non-owner veterinarians). |
+| **Main law or case** | 26 M.R.S. § 599-A |
+| **Main exceptions** | Veterinarian (non-owner) ban; health-care-practitioner restriction (L.D. 2200, eff. July 13, 2026); employer no-poach ban (§ 599-B) |
+| **When the ban took effect** | Wage-floor ban (threshold indexed; $62,600 in 2025) |
+| **Can a court narrow it?** | Unsettled |
+| **Applies to contractors?** | Unclear |
+| **Restriction extended during a breach?** | Not addressed |
+| **Maximum length set by law** | No statutory maximum (reasonable duration) |
+
+## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Maine? {#employee-noncompetes}
+
+**Short answer.** Sometimes, but Maine starts from a statutory anti-restraint rule: 26 M.R.S. § 599-A says non-competes are contrary to public policy[^maine-599a-public-policy-narrow-interests] and enforceable only if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect specified employer interests.
+
+The statute limits those interests to trade secrets, confidential information that is not a trade secret, and goodwill. A covenant aimed only at ordinary competition is outside that statutory frame.
+
+Maine common law points in the same direction. *Lord* says the covenant must sweep no wider than needed to protect the business interest, and *Sisters of Charity* treats duration, geography, and the nature of the protected interest as fact-intensive reasonableness questions [^lord-no-wider-than-necessary][^sisters-duration-geography-interest].
+
+## Which Maine workers cannot be bound by non-competes? {#protected-workers}
+
+**Short answer.** Maine bars non-competes for employees earning at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and for non-owner licensed veterinarians in covered veterinary facilities [^maine-599a-prohibited-workers][^maine-599a-veterinarian-prior-agreements].
+
+The wage floor moves with the federal poverty level. Foley reports that Maine updated its threshold from $60,240 in 2024 to $62,600 in 2025 [^foley-2025-maine-threshold].
+
+The veterinarian rule is stronger than ordinary non-enforcement. The current statutory text also tells courts not to enforce earlier or renewed veterinarian non-competes unless the veterinarian has an ownership interest in the facility [^maine-599a-veterinarian-prior-agreements].
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not treat the physician delayed-effect carve-out as a healthcare-wide permission rule. A separate health-care-practitioner restriction is now law: Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on April 15, 2026, and it applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after its July 13, 2026 effective date [^ebg-ld2200-enacted][^maine-599a-prohibited-workers].
+
+## What notice and timing rules apply to Maine non-competes? {#notice-timing}
+
+**Short answer.** Maine requires pre-offer disclosure, a copy at least 3 business days before signing, and delayed effectiveness until the later of one year of employment or 6 months after signing, except for allopathic and osteopathic physician agreements [^maine-599a-disclosure-notice][^maine-599a-delayed-effectiveness].
+
+The notice rule has two parts. First, if the job will require a non-compete, the employer must disclose that requirement before making the offer. Second, the employer must provide the agreement at least 3 business days before the required signing date.
+
+The delayed-effectiveness rule is separate from the signing rule. A compliant agreement can be signed before it takes effect. For most employees, the restriction does not ripen until both the statutory waiting period and the employment-duration rule are satisfied.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Build the notice and delay rules into onboarding workflows. A signature collected on time is not enough if the pre-offer disclosure or 3-business-day copy requirement was missed [^maine-599a-disclosure-notice].
+
+## Will Maine courts narrow or reform an overbroad non-compete? {#court-narrowing}
+
+**Short answer.** Often they evaluate the restraint as applied, not only as drafted. *Brignull* says Maine assesses a non-compete only as the employer sought to apply it[^brignull-as-applied-review].
+
+That makes Maine different from a strict red-pencil jurisdiction and from a mechanical blue-pencil state. The court can focus on the actual enforcement request, but the requested restraint still must be reasonable in duration, geography, and protected interest.
+
+*Lord* gives the limiting principle. The court may require specificity about what goodwill or business value needs protection before imposing or enforcing a severe restraint [^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not draft broadly just because Maine recognizes as-applied review. *Lord* still requires a record showing that the scope is reasonably necessary to protect the specific goodwill or business value at issue [^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint].
+
+## Are employer no-poach or no-hire agreements allowed in Maine? {#employer-no-poach}
+
+**Short answer.** No. 26 M.R.S. § 599-B prohibits employer-to-employer restrictive employment agreements that restrict one employer from soliciting or hiring another employer's employees or former employees [^maine-599b-no-poach-definition-ban].
+
+The statute reaches agreements between two or more employers, including through franchise, contractor, and subcontractor arrangements. It separately bars entering into the agreement, enforcing it, or threatening enforcement.
+
+Violations carry a civil fine of at least $5,000, and the Maine Department of Labor enforces the section [^maine-599b-penalty-enforcement].
+
+## Are non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements safer alternatives in Maine? {#alternatives}
+
+**Short answer.** Often yes. Section 599-A itself points to nonsolicitation, nondisclosure, and confidentiality agreements as alternatives, and a non-compete may be presumed necessary only when those alternatives cannot adequately protect the interest [^maine-599a-alternative-covenants].
+
+That does not make every alternative covenant low risk. A confidentiality covenant can protect information beyond trade secrets, but it cannot bar use of general skill or knowledge. *Bernier* upheld a nondisclosure clause because it protected specialized original work without stopping the employee from using general skill and knowledge [^bernier-confidential-not-general-skill].
+
+Maine also has a separate employment NDA statute. Section 599-C protects reporting, testimony, evidence, and law-enforcement communications in discrimination-related contexts, while preserving ordinary protections for proprietary information, trade secrets, and information confidential by law [^maine-599c-discrimination-reporting][^maine-599c-proprietary-info-saved].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not make a confidentiality clause do non-compete work. Maine allows protection for specialized confidential information, but *Bernier* distinguishes that from blocking general skill and knowledge [^bernier-confidential-not-general-skill].
+
+## What trade-secret remedies are available in Maine? {#trade-secrets}
+
+**Short answer.** Maine trade-secret law gives employers remedies that can substitute for or sit beside narrow restrictive covenants, including injunctions, damages, exemplary damages, and attorney-fee awards [^maine-utsa-injunctions][^maine-utsa-damages][^maine-utsa-fees].
+
+The definition matters because § 599-A cross-references Title 10, section 1542 for trade secrets. Maine defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable secrecy efforts [^maine-utsa-trade-secret-definition].
+
+The remedies are practical. Courts may restrain actual or threatened misappropriation, award actual loss and unjust enrichment, use a reasonable royalty measure, and award exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation [^maine-utsa-injunctions][^maine-utsa-damages].
+
+## What recent Maine non-compete developments should employers track? {#recent-developments}
+
+**Short answer.** Track three moving points: the annually indexed wage threshold, the 2024 veto of L.D. 1496, and the newly enacted L.D. 2200 health-care-practitioner restriction effective July 13, 2026 [^foley-2025-threshold-recent][^bernstein-ld1496-veto-sustained][^ebg-ld2200-effective].
+
+The 2024 veto means Maine did not move to a near-total employee non-compete ban then. Bernstein Shur reports that the veto was sustained on April 2, 2024, so employers continued to draft under the existing L.D. 733 framework [^bernstein-ld1496-veto-sustained].
+
+The 2026 healthcare development is now law. Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on April 15, 2026, and it applies to non-compete agreements entered into or renewed on or after its July 13, 2026 effective date [^ebg-ld2200-effective].
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Confirm the codified text before relying on the § 599-A page alone for healthcare covenants. L.D. 2200 was signed on April 15, 2026 but does not take effect until July 13, 2026, so the Revisor's current § 599-A text may still show only the wage-floor and veterinarian prohibitions until the amendment is codified [^maine-599a-current-prohibited-workers][^ebg-ld2200-effective].
+
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Maine. This article synthesizes Maine primary law and is not legal advice from a Maine-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+
+[^maine-599a-public-policy-narrow-interests]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "Noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonable and are no broader than necessary to protect one or more of the following legitimate business interests of the employer:" *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^lord-no-wider-than-necessary]: **Lord v. Lord** — "We have long recognized that non-competition agreements are contrary to public policy and will be enforced only to the extent that they are reasonable and sweep no wider than necessary to protect the business interests in issue." *Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 834 (Me. 1983).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2367150/lord-v-lord/#:~:text=We%20have%20long%20recognized%20that,the%20business%20interests%20in%20issue.>
+
+[^sisters-duration-geography-interest]: **Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. Farrago** — "Although reasonableness is a question of law, the inquiry is fact-intensive, and it depends on the specific circumstances of the case: the covenant’s duration, the scope of the specified geographic area, and the nature of the interest to be protected." *Sisters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. v. Farrago, 2011 ME 62, ¶ 10, 21 A.3d 110.* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2444708/sisters-of-charity-health-system-inc-v-farrago/#:~:text=Although%20reasonableness%20is%20a%20question,the%20interest%20to%20be%20protected.>
+
+[^maine-599a-prohibited-workers]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "The employee is earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level; or" *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(A).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^maine-599a-veterinarian-prior-agreements]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "A court may not enforce a noncompete agreement entered into or renewed with an employee who is a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71‑A before the effective date of this paragraph unless the employee is working in a veterinary facility in which the employee has an ownership interest." *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^foley-2025-maine-threshold]: **Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025** — "Accordingly, Maine is updating its $60,240 threshold from 2024 to $62,600 in 2025." *Foley & Lardner, Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025 (2025).* <https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/01/noncompete-agreements-updated-income-thresholds-for-2025/>
+
+[^ebg-ld2200-enacted]: **Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners** — "On April 15, 2026, Governor Janet T. Mills signed into law ‘An Act Relating to Noncompete Agreements Between Employers and Health Care Practitioners,’ L.D. 2200 (the ‘Amendments’)." *Epstein Becker Green, Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners (2026).* <https://www.tradesecretsandemployeemobility.com/maine-restricts-noncompetes-for-health-care-practitioners>
+
+[^maine-599a-disclosure-notice]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "An employer shall notify an employee or prospective employee of a noncompete agreement requirement and provide a copy of the noncompete agreement not less than 3 business days before the employer requires the agreement to be signed to allow time for the employee or prospective employee to review the agreement and negotiate the terms of the agreement or employment with the employer if the employee or prospective employee wishes to do so." *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(4).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^maine-599a-delayed-effectiveness]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "Except for a noncompete agreement between an employer and an allopathic physician or an osteopathic physician licensed under Title 32, chapter 48 or chapter 36, respectively, the terms of a noncompete agreement do not take effect until after one year of the employee's employment with the employer or a period of 6 months from the date the agreement was signed, whichever is later." *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(5).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^brignull-as-applied-review]: **Brignull v. Albert** — "Finally, because the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement depends on the specific facts of the case, we assess the agreement only as Brignull has sought to apply it and not as it might have been enforced on its terms." *Brignull v. Albert, 666 A.2d 82, 84 (Me. 1995).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381411/brignull-v-albert/#:~:text=Finally%2C%20because%20the%20reasonableness%20of,been%20enforced%20on%20its%20terms.>
+
+[^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint]: **Lord v. Lord** — "Upon remand, on the basis of the existing record and any further evidence received, the presiding justice should first define the nature and components of the good will included in the determination of value and then proceed to determine the scope of any restraint which may be reasonably necessary to protect the value of the asset." *Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 835 (Me. 1983).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2367150/lord-v-lord/#:~:text=Upon%20remand%2C%20on%20the%20basis,the%20value%20of%20the%20asset.>
+
+[^maine-599b-no-poach-definition-ban]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements** — "An employer may not:" *26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-B.html>
+
+[^maine-599b-penalty-enforcement]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements** — "An employer that violates subsection 2 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $5,000 may be adjudged. The Department of Labor is responsible for enforcement of this section." *26 M.R.S. § 599-B(3).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-B.html>
+
+[^maine-599a-alternative-covenants]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "A noncompete agreement may be presumed necessary if the legitimate business interest cannot be adequately protected through an alternative restrictive covenant, including but not limited to a nonsolicitation agreement or a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement." *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
+
+[^bernier-confidential-not-general-skill]: **Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers** — "The nondisclosure clause does not prohibit Bernier from using the general skill and knowledge he acquired during his employment with Merrill." *Bernier v. Merrill Air Eng'rs, 2001 ME 17, ¶ 18, 770 A.2d 97.* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/#:~:text=The%20nondisclosure%20clause%20does%20not,during%20his%20employment%20with%20Merrill.>
+
+[^maine-599c-discrimination-reporting]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements** — "An employer may not require an employee, intern or applicant for employment to enter into a contract or agreement that waives or limits any right to report or discuss unlawful employment discrimination, as defined and limited by Title 5, chapter 337, subchapter 3, occurring in the workplace or at work-related events." *26 M.R.S. § 599-C(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-C.html>
+
+[^maine-599c-proprietary-info-saved]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-C — Nondisclosure agreements** — "Nothing in this section may be construed as limiting the use of nondisclosure agreements to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information, trade secrets or information that is otherwise confidential by law, rule or regulation." *26 M.R.S. § 599-C(4).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-C.html>
+
+[^maine-utsa-injunctions]: **10 M.R.S. § 1543 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Injunctive relief)** — "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be restrained or enjoined." *10 M.R.S. § 1543(1).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10sec1543.html>
+
+[^maine-utsa-damages]: **10 M.R.S. § 1544 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Damages)** — "Damages may include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret." *10 M.R.S. § 1544(1).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10sec1544.html>
+
+[^maine-utsa-fees]: **10 M.R.S. § 1545 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Attorney's fees)** — "If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing party." *10 M.R.S. § 1545.* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10sec1545.html>
+
+[^maine-utsa-trade-secret-definition]: **10 M.R.S. § 1542 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Definitions)** — "‘Trade secret’ means information, including, but not limited to, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that:" *10 M.R.S. § 1542(4).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10sec1542.html>
+
+[^foley-2025-threshold-recent]: **Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025** — "Specifically, thresholds in Washington, Colorado, Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. increase each year." *Foley & Lardner, Noncompete Agreements: Updated Income Thresholds for 2025 (2025).* <https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/01/noncompete-agreements-updated-income-thresholds-for-2025/>
+
+[^bernstein-ld1496-veto-sustained]: **Governor Mills Vetoes L.D. 1496: What Maine Employers Need to Know** — "Because L.D. 1496 was vetoed and that veto was sustained by the Maine State Legislature, Maine employers should continue to reference L.D. 733 when drafting and negotiating noncompete agreements." *Bernstein Shur, Governor Mills Vetoes L.D. 1496: What Maine Employers Need to Know (2024).* <https://www.bernsteinshur.com/insights-events/governor-mills-vetoes-l-d-1496-an-act-to-prohibit-noncompete-clauses-what-maine-employers-need-to-know/>
+
+[^ebg-ld2200-effective]: **Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners** — "The Amendments apply to all noncompete agreements entered into, or renewed on or after, the Amendments’ effective date of July 13, 2026 (the ‘Effective Date’)." *Epstein Becker Green, Maine Restricts Noncompetes for Health Care Practitioners (2026).* <https://www.tradesecretsandemployeemobility.com/maine-restricts-noncompetes-for-health-care-practitioners>
+
+[^maine-599a-current-prohibited-workers]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "The employee is earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level; or" *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(A).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>