open-agreements 0.7.6 → 0.8.0

package/skills/legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer/content/nevada.md

@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
+---
+jurisdiction: "Nevada"
+slug: nevada
+countryCode: US
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
+lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada
+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/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
+
+# Non-Competes in Nevada[^about]
+
+A question-by-question summary of Nevada non-compete law, including NRS 613.195, mandatory judicial revision, hourly-wage workers, volunteer customer limits, layoffs, assignment in transactions, healthcare covenants, and trade-secret alternatives.
+
+
+## At a glance
+
+| Question | Nevada |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Are non-competes enforceable?** | Allowed if reasonable |
+| **Bottom line** | Nevada enforces employee non-competes that meet a four-part statutory reasonableness test, but bans them for solely hourly-wage workers and requires courts to revise overbroad covenants. |
+| **Main law or case** | NRS 613.195 |
+| **Main exceptions** | Hourly-wage workers excluded; volunteer-customer safe harbor; layoff/RIF enforceable only while employer pays; sale-of-business antitrust carve-out (NRS 598A.040) |
+| **Can a court narrow it?** | Yes — rewrites to reasonable |
+| **Applies to contractors?** | Unclear |
+| **Restriction extended during a breach?** | Silent — no authority |
+| **Maximum length set by law** | No statutory limit |
+
+## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Nevada? {#employee-noncompetes}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, if they satisfy Nevada's statute. A non-compete is void unless it is supported by valuable consideration, protects no more than the employer needs, avoids undue hardship, and uses restrictions appropriate to the consideration given [^q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability].
+
+Nevada is a reasonableness state with a detailed statutory overlay. The core rule is NRS 613.195(1), which states the enforceability test directly.
+
+"A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant."[^q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability]
+
+That makes Nevada more permissive than a ban state, but it is not a free drafting state. The statute also removes hourly-only workers, protects certain former customers, limits enforcement after a layoff or restructuring, and requires fee shifting in specified unlawful-enforcement cases.
+
+## What must a valid Nevada non-compete satisfy? {#valid-covenant-requirements}
+
+**Short answer.** Four statutory requirements. The covenant must have valuable consideration, avoid restraints greater than necessary, avoid undue hardship, and keep the restrictions appropriate to the consideration supporting the covenant [^q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong].
+
+The four requirements work together. Consideration alone does not make a restraint enforceable, and a reasonable time period does not cure an overbroad activity ban. A Nevada court still asks whether the covenant protects the employer without imposing an excessive restraint or employee hardship.
+
+The fourth requirement is especially important for mid-employment agreements. It asks whether the restriction is appropriate in relation to the consideration, so the value given for the covenant matters to the scope the employer asks a court to enforce [^q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Draft the restriction around the actual interest being protected. Nevada's statutory text makes the employer justify both the business need and the fit between the restraint and the consideration [^q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong].
+
+## Must a Nevada court revise an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it? {#court-revision}
+
+**Short answer.** Usually yes, when revision is possible. NRS 613.195(6) directs the court to revise and enforce an overbroad but consideration-supported covenant, and *Tough Turtle Turf* confirms that judicial revision is mandatory when the court can revise instead of rewrite the agreement [^q3-nrs-613-195-revision][^q3-tough-turtle-mandatory][^q3-tough-turtle-rewrite].
+
+The statute gives Nevada courts a mandatory reformation role for covenants that are supported by valuable consideration but are unreasonable in time, geography, activity scope, restraint level, or employee hardship.
+
+"If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds the covenant is supported by valuable consideration but contains limitations as to time, geographical area or scope of activity to be restrained that are not reasonable, imposes a greater restraint than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed or imposes undue hardship on the employee, the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised."[^q3-nrs-613-195-revision]
+
+That was a statutory change from the prior *Golden Road* rule. In 2016, before NRS 613.195 took effect, the Nevada Supreme Court treated an unreasonable non-compete as wholly unenforceable [^q3-golden-road-old-rule].
+
+"Under Nevada law, such an unreasonable provision renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable."[^q3-golden-road-old-rule]
+
+The Legislature then superseded that no-reformation rule. *Tough Turtle Turf* explains the history and the current limit: the court must revise when possible, but it need not supply missing essential terms or create a new contract. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Nevada non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/nevada) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
+
+"This provision overruled Golden Road's holding that an unreasonable noncompete covenant can never be revised."[^q3-tough-turtle-overruled]
+
+"It nonetheless mandates judicial revision of a restrictive covenant if this can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms."[^q3-tough-turtle-mandatory]
+
+For older agreements, *Duong* adds a separate path. Even before the statute applied, the Nevada Supreme Court allowed blue-penciling when the covenant itself had a savings or reformation clause [^q3-duong-savings-clause].
+
+"We hold that Golden Road does not prohibit a district court from blue-penciling an unreasonable noncompetition agreement if the agreement itself allows for it."[^q3-duong-savings-clause]
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not rely on Nevada revision to fill missing deal terms. *Tough Turtle Turf* requires revision when possible, but the court still distinguishes revising an existing covenant from writing a new one for the parties [^q3-tough-turtle-mandatory][^q3-tough-turtle-rewrite].
+
+## Can a Nevada non-compete apply to an hourly-wage worker? {#hourly-wage-workers}
+
+**Short answer.** No, if the employee is paid solely on an hourly wage basis. NRS 613.195(3) says a non-compete may not apply to that employee, excluding tips and gratuities from the analysis [^q4-nrs-613-195-hourly].
+
+"A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities."[^q4-nrs-613-195-hourly]
+
+The important unresolved edge case is the word *solely*. Nevada appellate courts have not squarely decided whether a worker paid hourly plus commission, a nondiscretionary bonus, or another non-tip form of compensation falls outside subsection 3. That issue should be treated as open until Nevada courts or the Legislature address it.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not assume a small add-on payment makes an hourly worker covenant enforceable. The statute creates mandatory fee risk for unlawful enforcement, and the hourly-plus-commission boundary remains unsettled [^q4-nrs-613-195-hourly][^q4-nrs-613-195-fees].
+
+## Can a Nevada employer stop a former employee from serving a customer who sought them out? {#volunteer-customers}
+
+**Short answer.** Usually no, if the statutory safe harbor is met. Nevada bars an employer from restricting service to a former customer when the employee did not solicit the customer, the customer voluntarily chose the employee, and the employee otherwise follows the covenant's valid time, geographic, and activity limits [^q5-nrs-613-195-customer].
+
+"A noncompetition covenant may not restrict, and an employer may not bring an action to restrict, a former employee of an employer from providing service to a former customer or client if: (a) The former employee did not solicit the former customer or client; (b) The customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) The former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee."[^q5-nrs-613-195-customer]
+
+This is a service safe harbor, not a general permission to solicit. The former employee still needs to comply with valid time, territory, and activity limits, and the customer must come without contact instigated by the employee.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> An absolute no-service clause for former customers is risky in Nevada. If the customer independently seeks out the former employee and the statutory conditions are met, enforcing that clause can trigger fee shifting [^q5-nrs-613-195-customer][^q5-nrs-613-195-fees].
+
+## What happens to a Nevada non-compete after a layoff or reduction in force? {#layoff-reduction-in-force}
+
+**Short answer.** It is enforceable only while the employer keeps paying. For an employer-driven reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring, Nevada allows enforcement only during the period the employer pays salary, benefits, equivalent compensation, or severance [^q6-nrs-613-195-rif].
+
+"If the termination of the employment of an employee is the result of a reduction of force, reorganization or similar restructuring of the employer, a noncompetition covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including, without limitation, severance pay."[^q6-nrs-613-195-rif]
+
+This operates like conditional garden leave for layoffs and restructurings. It does not say every involuntary termination requires pay; the trigger is a reduction of force, reorganization, or similar restructuring. The current staged statute places this rule in subsection 5.
+
+## What are the penalties for enforcing an unlawful Nevada non-compete? {#fees-penalties}
+
+**Short answer.** Fee shifting can be mandatory. If the employer enforces against a solely hourly-wage employee, or restricts or attempts to restrict a protected volunteer-customer situation, the court must award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs [^q7-nrs-613-195-fees].
+
+"If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs."[^q7-nrs-613-195-fees]
+
+The word *shall* matters. This is not merely a discretionary prevailing-party rule for every covenant dispute; it is a mandatory award tied to the hourly-worker ban and the volunteer-customer safe harbor.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Screen the worker's compensation structure and the customer facts before filing. Nevada makes the fee consequence mandatory when the covenant reaches subsection 3 employees or subsection 2 customer-service activity [^q7-nrs-613-195-fees].
+
+## What consideration supports a Nevada non-compete? {#consideration}
+
+**Short answer.** Historically, continued at-will employment was enough, but the modern statute adds a proportionality question. *Camco* held continued employment sufficient at common law, while NRS 613.195 now also requires restrictions appropriate to the valuable consideration supporting the covenant [^q8-camco-consideration][^q8-nrs-613-195-consideration].
+
+In *Camco*, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the majority rule that continued employment can support a post-hire non-compete.
+
+"Today we adopt the majority rule which states that an at-will employee's continued employment is sufficient consideration for enforcing a non-competition agreement."[^q8-camco-consideration]
+
+The statute now speaks in two places. The covenant must be supported by valuable consideration, and the restrictions must be appropriate in relation to that consideration [^q8-nrs-613-195-consideration].
+
+"A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant."[^q8-nrs-613-195-consideration]
+
+The open question is how much *Camco* survives the statutory proportionality requirement in a difficult case. Continued employment remains important Nevada authority, but no staged Nevada appellate source squarely decides whether continued employment alone satisfies NRS 613.195(1)(d) for a severe covenant.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> For a mid-employment rollout, fresh value is safer than relying only on continued employment. *Camco* supports continued employment as consideration, but the current statute separately tests whether the restriction is appropriate to the consideration [^q8-camco-consideration][^q8-nrs-613-195-consideration].
+
+## Does a Nevada non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation? {#tolling-during-breach}
+
+**Short answer.** This is an open question. Nevada's staged statute and cases do not squarely address judicial tolling or contractual extension clauses, though NRS 613.195(6) lets a court revise and enforce reasonable terms when revision is possible [^q9-nrs-613-195-revision].
+
+Many covenants say the restricted period pauses during breach or litigation so the employer receives the full period of compliance. The staged Nevada authorities do not contain a Nevada holding approving or rejecting that kind of tolling clause.
+
+As a mandatory revision state, Nevada gives courts authority to revise time, geography, and activity restrictions and enforce the covenant as revised.
+
+"Such revisions must cause the limitations contained in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable, to not impose undue hardship on the employee and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed."[^q9-nrs-613-195-revision]
+
+That supports an inference that a reasonable, clearly drafted contractual extension-on-breach clause could be considered with the rest of the covenant. It is only an inference, not a Nevada tolling holding.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> No staged Nevada statute or case squarely decides whether a court may extend a non-compete period for breach or pending litigation. Treat tolling as unsettled, and draft any extension clause as a defined, reasonable term rather than an open-ended restraint [^q9-nrs-613-195-revision].
+
+## Can a Nevada non-compete be assigned in a sale of the business or a merger? {#assignment-sale-merger}
+
+**Short answer.** It depends on the transaction. In an asset sale, *Traffic Control Services* treats employee non-competes as personal and unassignable absent the employee's express consent, obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration; in a statutory merger, *HD Supply* says the nonassignability rule does not apply [^q10-traffic-control-consent][^q10-hd-supply-merger].
+
+The asset-sale rule is strict. *Traffic Control Services* held that employee non-competes are personal in nature, so an asset buyer cannot enforce them without the employee's express consent, obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration.
+
+"Covenants not to compete are personal in nature and therefore are not assignable absent the employee's express consent. Further, an employer must obtain such consent through arm's-length negotiation with the employee, supported by valuable consideration beyond that necessary to support the underlying covenant."[^q10-traffic-control-consent]
+
+The court later clarified in *HD Supply* that a statutory merger is different. The covenant passes by operation of law, so the *Traffic Control Services* assignment rule does not control merger succession.
+
+"Traffic Control's rule of nonassignability does not apply when a successor corporation acquires restrictive employment covenants as the result of a merger."[^q10-hd-supply-merger]
+
+Nevada also has a separate sale-of-business antitrust carve-out. Restrictive covenants that are part of a contract for the sale of a business are outside Chapter 598A when they bar the seller from competing within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time [^q10-nrs-598a-sale-business].
+
+"Restrictive covenants: (a) Which are part of a contract of sale for a business and which bar the seller of the business from competing with the purchaser of the business sold within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time; or (b) Which are part of a commercial shopping center lease and which bar the parties from permitting or engaging in the furnishing of certain services or the sale of certain commodities within the commercial shopping center where such leased premises are located."[^q10-nrs-598a-sale-business]
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not assume an employee covenant follows the assets automatically. Nevada draws a hard line between asset sales and statutory mergers, and an asset buyer should plan for employee consent, an express assignment clause, and separate consideration where *Traffic Control Services* applies [^q10-traffic-control-consent].
+
+## Are Nevada physician and healthcare non-competes enforceable? {#healthcare-physicians}
+
+**Short answer.** No healthcare-specific ban appears in Nevada's non-compete statute, so a physician or healthcare covenant is not automatically void — but it is not automatically enforceable either. It is judged case by case under the general NRS 613.195 requirements: valuable consideration, no excessive restraint, no undue hardship, and proportional restrictions [^q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare].
+
+The staged research reports note that the 2023 Nevada Legislature passed AB 11, a physician non-compete bill, but the Governor vetoed it. That legislative history signals scrutiny of healthcare covenants, not an enacted ban.
+
+Current enforceability therefore returns to the ordinary Nevada framework. A physician or healthcare covenant must fit the statute, and healthcare access or public-interest facts can matter when a court evaluates undue hardship and the reasonableness of the restraint.
+
+"A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant."[^q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare]
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not treat the AB 11 veto as permission to use broad healthcare covenants. The current statute still requires narrow, consideration-linked restrictions that do not impose undue hardship [^q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare].
+
+## How do Nevada trade-secret protections and NDAs compare to non-competes? {#trade-secrets-ndas}
+
+**Short answer.** They remain available and often narrower. Nevada has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and NRS 613.200 expressly allows reasonable, consideration-supported confidentiality agreements covering trade secrets and confidential business information [^q12-nrs-600a-010-utsa][^q12-nrs-613-200-nda].
+
+NRS Chapter 600A is Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
+
+"This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act."[^q12-nrs-600a-010-utsa]
+
+The trade-secret definition focuses on economic value from secrecy and reasonable secrecy efforts.
+
+"‘Trade secret’: (a) Means information, including, without limitation, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming instruction or code that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public or any other persons who can obtain commercial or economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."[^q12-nrs-600a-030-trade-secret]
+
+NRS 613.200 separately makes it unlawful to willfully prevent a discharged or departing person from getting other work, subject to the non-compete statute and other exceptions [^q12-nrs-613-200-mobility]. But it expressly preserves reasonable confidentiality agreements for trade secrets, business methods, customer lists, formulas, processes, and confidential information [^q12-nrs-613-200-nda].
+
+"The provisions of this section do not prohibit a person, association, company, corporation, agent or officer from negotiating, executing and enforcing an agreement with an employee of the person, association, company or corporation which, upon termination of the employment, prohibits the employee from disclosing any trade secrets, business methods, lists of customers, secret formulas or processes or confidential information learned or obtained during the course of his or her employment with the person, association, company or corporation if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in its scope and duration."[^q12-nrs-613-200-nda]
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Use confidentiality and trade-secret covenants for secrecy interests, not as a disguised non-compete. NRS 613.200 preserves reasonable NDAs, but it also prohibits willful interference with a former worker's ability to obtain other employment [^q12-nrs-613-200-nda][^q12-nrs-613-200-mobility].
+
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nevada. This article synthesizes Nevada primary law and is not legal advice from a Nevada-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+
+[^q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." *NRS 613.195(1).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." *NRS 613.195(1)(a)-(d).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q3-nrs-613-195-revision]: **NRS 613.195** — "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds the covenant is supported by valuable consideration but contains limitations as to time, geographical area or scope of activity to be restrained that are not reasonable, imposes a greater restraint than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed or imposes undue hardship on the employee, the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised." *NRS 613.195(6).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q3-tough-turtle-mandatory]: **Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott** — "It nonetheless mandates judicial revision of a restrictive covenant if this can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms." *Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=It%20nonetheless%20mandates%20judicial%20revision,subjecting%20employees%20to%20unreasonable%20terms.>
+
+[^q3-tough-turtle-rewrite]: **Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott** — "Reading subsection (1) harmoniously with subsection (6) indicates that there are instances when a noncompete covenant will be unenforceable, such as when no valuable consideration supports the noncompete covenant or when the court would need to rewrite rather than revise the noncompete covenant." *Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=Reading%20subsection%20(1)%20harmoniously%20with,than%20revise%20the%20noncompete%20covenant.>
+
+[^q3-golden-road-old-rule]: **Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam** — "Under Nevada law, such an unreasonable provision renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable." *Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 132 Nev. 476, 376 P.3d 151 (2016).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4240728/golden-rd-motor-inn-v-islam/#:~:text=Under%20Nevada%20law%2C%20such%20an,the%20noncompete%20agreement%20wholly%20unenforceable.>
+
+[^q3-tough-turtle-overruled]: **Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott** — "This provision overruled Golden Road's holding that an unreasonable noncompete covenant can never be revised." *Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=This%20provision%20overruled%20Golden%20Road's,covenant%20can%20never%20be%20revised.>
+
+[^q3-duong-savings-clause]: **Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd.** — "We hold that Golden Road does not prohibit a district court from blue-penciling an unreasonable noncompetition agreement if the agreement itself allows for it." *Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 87, 478 P.3d 380 (2020).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5304741/duong-md-vs-fielden-hanson-isaacs-miyada-robison-yeh-ltd/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20Golden%20Road,agreement%20itself%20allows%20for%20it.>
+
+[^q4-nrs-613-195-hourly]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities." *NRS 613.195(3).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q4-nrs-613-195-fees]: **NRS 613.195** — "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs." *NRS 613.195(7).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q5-nrs-613-195-customer]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant may not restrict, and an employer may not bring an action to restrict, a former employee of an employer from providing service to a former customer or client if: (a) The former employee did not solicit the former customer or client; (b) The customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) The former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee." *NRS 613.195(2).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q5-nrs-613-195-fees]: **NRS 613.195** — "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs." *NRS 613.195(7).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q6-nrs-613-195-rif]: **NRS 613.195** — "If the termination of the employment of an employee is the result of a reduction of force, reorganization or similar restructuring of the employer, a noncompetition covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including, without limitation, severance pay." *NRS 613.195(5).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q7-nrs-613-195-fees]: **NRS 613.195** — "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs." *NRS 613.195(7).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q8-camco-consideration]: **Camco, Inc. v. Baker** — "Today we adopt the majority rule which states that an at-will employee's continued employment is sufficient consideration for enforcing a non-competition agreement." *Camco, Inc. v. Baker, 113 Nev. 512, 936 P.2d 829 (1997).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1224995/camco-inc-v-baker/#:~:text=Today%20we%20adopt%20the%20majority,for%20enforcing%20a%20non%2Dcompetition%20agreement.>
+
+[^q8-nrs-613-195-consideration]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." *NRS 613.195(1)(a), (d).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q9-nrs-613-195-revision]: **NRS 613.195** — "Such revisions must cause the limitations contained in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable, to not impose undue hardship on the employee and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed." *NRS 613.195(6).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q10-traffic-control-consent]: **Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc.** — "Covenants not to compete are personal in nature and therefore are not assignable absent the employee's express consent. Further, an employer must obtain such consent through arm's-length negotiation with the employee, supported by valuable consideration beyond that necessary to support the underlying covenant." *Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 120 Nev. 168, 87 P.3d 1054 (2004).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8085820/traffic-control-services-inc-v-united-rentals-northwest-inc/#:~:text=Covenants%20not%20to%20compete%20are,to%20support%20the%20underlying%20covenant.>
+
+[^q10-hd-supply-merger]: **HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen** — "Traffic Control's rule of nonassignability does not apply when a successor corporation acquires restrictive employment covenants as the result of a merger." *HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 125 Nev. 200, 210 P.3d 183 (2009).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2575254/hd-supply-facilities-maintenance-ltd-v-bymoen/#:~:text=Traffic%20Control's%20rule%20of%20nonassignability,the%20result%20of%20a%20merger.>
+
+[^q10-nrs-598a-sale-business]: **NRS 598A.040** — "Restrictive covenants: (a) Which are part of a contract of sale for a business and which bar the seller of the business from competing with the purchaser of the business sold within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time; or (b) Which are part of a commercial shopping center lease and which bar the parties from permitting or engaging in the furnishing of certain services or the sale of certain commodities within the commercial shopping center where such leased premises are located." *NRS 598A.040(5).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-598A.html>
+
+[^q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." *NRS 613.195(1).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q12-nrs-600a-010-utsa]: **NRS 600A.010** — "This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act." *NRS 600A.010.* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600A.html>
+
+[^q12-nrs-613-200-nda]: **NRS 613.200** — "The provisions of this section do not prohibit a person, association, company, corporation, agent or officer from negotiating, executing and enforcing an agreement with an employee of the person, association, company or corporation which, upon termination of the employment, prohibits the employee from disclosing any trade secrets, business methods, lists of customers, secret formulas or processes or confidential information learned or obtained during the course of his or her employment with the person, association, company or corporation if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in its scope and duration." *NRS 613.200(4).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>
+
+[^q12-nrs-600a-030-trade-secret]: **NRS 600A.030** — "‘Trade secret’: (a) Means information, including, without limitation, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming instruction or code that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public or any other persons who can obtain commercial or economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." *NRS 600A.030(5)(a).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600A.html>
+
+[^q12-nrs-613-200-mobility]: **NRS 613.200** — "Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 613.195 , any person, association, company or corporation within this State, or any agent or officer on behalf of the person, association, company or corporation, who willfully does anything intended to prevent any person who for any cause left or was discharged from his, her or its employ from obtaining employment elsewhere in this State is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000." *NRS 613.200(1).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>

package/skills/legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer/content/new-hampshire.md

@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
+---
+jurisdiction: "New Hampshire"
+slug: new-hampshire
+countryCode: US
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
+lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-hampshire
+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/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-hampshire · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
+
+# Non-Competes in New Hampshire[^about]
+
+New Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a common-law test, but RSA 275:70 creates a pre-acceptance notice rule, RSA 275:70-a voids low-wage employee noncompetes, healthcare statutes void certain geographic practice restrictions, and RSA chapter 350-B preserves trade-secret alternatives.
+
+
+## At a glance
+
+| Question | New Hampshire |
+| --- | --- |
+| **Are non-competes enforceable?** | Allowed above a pay level |
+| **Bottom line** | New Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a three-part common-law test, but voids them for low-wage employees (at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage) and requires pre-acceptance notice to new hires. |
+| **Main law or case** | Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979); RSA 275:70 and RSA 275:70-a |
+| **Main exceptions** | Low-wage ban (≤200% federal min wage); pre-acceptance notice (RSA 275:70); geographic-practice bans for physicians/nurses/APRNs/podiatrists; sale-of-business |
+| **When the ban took effect** | APRN health-care ban eff. Aug 23, 2025 (low-wage ban date not stated) |
+| **Can a court narrow it?** | Yes — rewrites to reasonable |
+| **Applies to contractors?** | Unclear |
+| **Restriction extended during a breach?** | Unsettled — no controlling authority |
+| **Maximum length set by law** | No statutory limit |
+
+## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in New Hampshire? {#employee-noncompetes}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, if the restraint is reasonable and no statute makes it unenforceable. New Hampshire uses a three-part reasonableness test: the restriction must protect a legitimate employer interest, avoid undue hardship on the employee, and avoid injury to the public interest [^foster-three-part-test][^hobert-reasonable-enforceable].
+
+The practical starting point is common law plus statutory gates. Even a reasonable covenant can fail if it was not disclosed before the employee accepted the offer, if the employee is covered by the low-wage ban, or if a profession-specific healthcare statute voids the restriction.
+
+New Hampshire also construes restraints narrowly. The court starts with the employer interest being protected, then asks whether the chosen time, geography, customer, and activity limits are broader than that interest requires [^foster-three-part-test]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement, the [New Hampshire non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/new-hampshire) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not summarize New Hampshire as either a total-ban state or a free-enforcement state. It is a reasonableness-test state with statutory traps layered on top [^foster-three-part-test][^hobert-reasonable-enforceable].
+
+## Is continued employment enough consideration for a New Hampshire non-compete? {#consideration-after-hire}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes. New Hampshire recognizes continued employment after signing as consideration for a covenant not to compete [^foster-continued-employment].
+
+That consideration rule does not cure statutory notice problems. If the worker is a new employee covered by RSA 275:70, the employer still must provide the noncompete before the employee accepts the offer, regardless of common-law consideration [^rsa-275-70-notice-gate].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Separate consideration from timing. Continued employment may support the covenant, but late delivery can still make the noncompete unenforceable under RSA 275:70 [^foster-continued-employment][^rsa-275-70-notice-gate].
+
+## What is a legitimate protectable interest for a New Hampshire non-compete? {#legitimate-interests}
+
+**Short answer.** Protectable interests include trade secrets, confidential information, special customer influence, employment-developed contacts, goodwill, and a positive business image. Ordinary recruiting and hiring costs are not enough [^hobert-legitimate-interests][^olsten-recruiting-costs].
+
+Goodwill is often the practical center of the analysis. New Hampshire cases allow protection against a former employee appropriating customer or patient goodwill developed through the job, but they do not allow a covenant to block ordinary competition unrelated to that employer asset [^forbes-patient-goodwill].
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Before enforcing, identify the employer asset at risk. A covenant based only on the cost of hiring or training workers is unlikely to satisfy the first prong of the New Hampshire test [^olsten-recruiting-costs].
+
+## How narrow must a New Hampshire non-compete's duration, geography, and customer scope be? {#scope-duration-geography}
+
+**Short answer.** Narrow enough to match the protected interest. Customer and geography limits generally should track the employee's actual sphere of customer influence, and duration should last no longer than needed to protect the employer's goodwill or confidential information [^near-customer-sphere][^forbes-duration-geography].
+
+New Hampshire courts are especially skeptical of all-customer restrictions. In *Near*, a covenant covering customers beyond the salesperson's contacts was too broad because the employee had no special claim on most of the employer's customer base [^near-customer-sphere].
+
+The same principle applies to geography. A territory is not reasonable merely because it is named. It should correspond to the market where the employee had customer or patient contact, or to another concrete employer interest.
+
+## Will a New Hampshire court reform an overbroad non-compete? {#court-reformation}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, but only if the employer proves good faith in the execution of the agreement. New Hampshire courts have power to reform overbroad covenants, but bad-faith presentation can defeat that remedy [^near-good-faith-reformation][^syncom-bad-faith-reformation].
+
+The good-faith issue is practical, not cosmetic. Courts have treated lack of advance discussion, post-start presentation, first-day pressure, and lack of a meaningful opportunity to understand the restriction as facts relevant to denying reformation.
+
+Reformation is a narrowing remedy. It is not a license to draft an overbroad all-customer covenant and ask the court to rescue it later.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Draft for enforceability at signing. If the agreement is presented late, under pressure, or without a fair chance to understand it, New Hampshire courts may refuse to reform even if a narrower covenant might have been valid [^near-good-faith-reformation][^syncom-bad-faith-reformation].
+
+## What is New Hampshire's RSA 275:70 pre-acceptance notice requirement? {#pre-acceptance-notice}
+
+**Short answer.** RSA 275:70 is the marquee New Hampshire drafting trap. If an employer requires an employee who has not previously worked for the employer to sign a noncompete as a condition of employment, the employer must provide a copy before the employee accepts the offer, and an undisclosed noncompete is not enforceable against the employee [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance].
+
+The statute preserves other provisions in the same agreement. A notice failure defeats the noncompete, but confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade-secret, intellectual-property assignment, and other employment provisions can remain in force [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Give the actual noncompete with the offer materials, not during onboarding. The statutory consequence is unenforceability of the noncompete itself, even though other agreement provisions may survive [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance].
+
+## What is New Hampshire's low-wage employee non-compete ban? {#low-wage-employees}
+
+**Short answer.** RSA 275:70-a prohibits employers from requiring low-wage employees to enter into noncompete agreements. A noncompete with a covered low-wage employee is void and unenforceable [^rsa-275-70-a-ban][^rsa-275-70-a-void].
+
+The statute defines a low-wage employee by hourly rate, not job title. The threshold is less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage, currently $14.50 per hour while the federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour [^rsa-275-70-a-threshold].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Check wage coverage before drafting any New Hampshire noncompete for hourly or lower-paid roles. If RSA 275:70-a applies, narrower wording does not save a noncompete agreement with that low-wage employee [^rsa-275-70-a-ban][^rsa-275-70-a-void].
+
+## What special non-compete rules apply to New Hampshire healthcare practitioners? {#healthcare-practitioners}
+
+**Short answer.** New Hampshire statutes void certain post-termination geographic practice restrictions for physicians, nurses, advanced practice registered nurses, and podiatrists. The APRN statute is effective August 23, 2025 [^rsa-329-31-a-physicians][^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses][^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns][^rsa-315-18-podiatrists].
+
+These statutes target geographic practice restrictions in professional relationship contracts. They do not automatically answer every separate issue, such as confidentiality, patient records, trade secrets, or non-geographic solicitation wording.
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> Do not use a geographic practice ban for covered New Hampshire clinicians. Draft separate confidentiality and trade-secret provisions if the real concern is information protection rather than practice location [^rsa-329-31-a-physicians][^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses][^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns][^rsa-315-18-podiatrists].
+
+## Are sale-of-business non-competes enforceable in New Hampshire? {#sale-of-business}
+
+**Short answer.** Yes, when the restraint is reasonable and tied to the goodwill or business assets being sold. New Hampshire enforced a sale-of-business covenant that barred motel, restaurant, and resort competition for five years within a 15-mile radius [^gosselin-sale-covenant].
+
+Asset-purchase standing can also matter. In *Atronix*, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the buyer received the employee noncompete under the asset purchase agreement's transfer language, reversing dismissal for lack of standing [^atronix-assigned-covenant].
+
+That does not make sale covenants unlimited. The agreement still should tie the restraint to the goodwill or business assets being sold, and the written duration still matters.
+
+## Can New Hampshire independent contractors be bound by non-competes? {#independent-contractors}
+
+**Short answer.** New Hampshire appellate law in this source set does not supply a settled independent-contractor rule. Treat contractor noncompetes as high-risk restraints that still must satisfy the same concrete-interest and narrow-tailoring principles that govern employee covenants [^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors][^hcc-persuasive-limits].
+
+The available non-binding material points in a cautious direction. A federal District of New Hampshire decision applying New Hampshire law is persuasive only, not controlling state appellate law, and it declined to enjoin the noncompete for lack of irreparable injury and a favorable balance of equities while still issuing the narrower nondisclosure injunction [^hcc-persuasive-limits][^hcc-nondisclosure-granted].
+
+Because the available appellate source set does not squarely address independent contractors, use the employee-covenant cases by analogy: the safer analysis is whether the contractor actually received trade secrets, confidential information, customer influence, or goodwill capable of appropriation.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> Do not assume the contractor label expands enforceability. If the worker was engaged as an independent business and lacked concrete access to protectable goodwill or confidential information, the restraint may look like ordinary competition control rather than protection of an employer asset [^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors].
+
+## What trade-secret alternatives remain when a New Hampshire non-compete fails? {#trade-secrets}
+
+**Short answer.** RSA chapter 350-B remains an important alternative. New Hampshire's trade-secret statute defines trade secrets by independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts, authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation, and preserves contractual remedies [^rsa-350-b-1-definition][^rsa-350-b-2-injunction][^rsa-350-b-7-contracts].
+
+Trade-secret relief is not a substitute for an overbroad noncompete. It protects information that qualifies under the statute and can support narrower orders against misuse or disclosure, including affirmative acts in appropriate circumstances.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> **Practice note.**
+>
+> If the business concern is information misuse, build the record for trade-secret protection: identify the information, document economic value from secrecy, and maintain reasonable secrecy measures. RSA chapter 350-B is strongest when the facts support secrecy, not merely competition [^rsa-350-b-1-definition][^rsa-350-b-2-injunction].
+
+## Does a New Hampshire non-compete period pause or extend during breach or litigation? {#tolling-during-breach}
+
+**Short answer.** This is unsettled for employment noncompetes. New Hampshire appellate law in this source set does not squarely decide whether a restricted period pauses during breach, extends while litigation is pending, or whether a contractual extension-during-breach clause is enforceable [^gosselin-no-extension].
+
+The remedial pattern points to caution. New Hampshire cases recognize reformation as a scope-narrowing remedy for overbroad covenants when the employer proves good faith, but those cases do not create a general rule extending the duration of a covenant after breach [^near-reformation-narrowing][^syncom-reformation-open].
+
+In the sale-of-business setting, *Gosselin* rejected a court-ordered extension of the written five-year covenant because there was no ambiguity or evidence of party intent to extend it. That holding does not answer every employment tolling clause question, but it is a strong reason not to assert a New Hampshire tolling rule [^gosselin-no-extension].
+
+> [!CAUTION]
+> **Drafting note.**
+>
+> A tolling or extension-during-breach clause is a drafting choice of uncertain enforceability in New Hampshire. If you include one, tie it to the protected interest and the covenant's overall duration, and do not assume a court will extend the period beyond the contract's fair and natural meaning [^gosselin-no-extension][^near-reformation-narrowing].
+
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not New Hampshire. This article synthesizes New Hampshire primary law and is not legal advice from a New Hampshire-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+
+[^foster-three-part-test]: **Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster** — "In scrutinizing restrictive covenants, this court employs the following three-pronged test: ‘[a] restraint on employment is reasonable only if it is no greater than necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate interest, does not impose undue hardship on the employee and is not injurious to the public interest.’" *Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2375592/smith-batchelder-rugg-v-foster/#:~:text=In%20scrutinizing%20restrictive%20covenants%2C%20this,injurious%20to%20the%20public%20interest.%E2%80%9D>
+
+[^hobert-reasonable-enforceable]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant’s non-competition covenant was reasonable and enforceable." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320967/acas-acquisitions-precitech-inc-v-hobert/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20we%20conclude%20that%20the%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20non%2Dcompetition%20covenant%20was%20reasonable%20and%20enforceable.>
+
+[^foster-continued-employment]: **Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster** — "Continued employment after signing an employment contract constitutes consideration for a covenant not to compete contained therein." *Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2375592/smith-batchelder-rugg-v-foster/#:~:text=Continued%20employment%20after%20signing%20an,not%20to%20compete%20contained%20therein.>
+
+[^rsa-275-70-notice-gate]: **RSA 275:70** — "A noncompete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee as required by this section shall not be enforceable against the employee, but all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect." *RSA 275:70.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-70.htm>
+
+[^hobert-legitimate-interests]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "Legitimate interests of an employer that may be protected from competition include: the employer’s trade secrets that have been communicated to the employee during the course of employment; confidential information other than trade secrets communicated by the employer to the employee, such as information regarding a unique business method; an employee’s special influence over the employer’s customers, obtained during the course of employment; contacts developed during the employment; and the employer’s development of goodwill and a positive image." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320967/acas-acquisitions-precitech-inc-v-hobert/#:~:text=Legitimate%20interests%20of%20an%20employer,goodwill%20and%20a%20positive%20image.>
+
+[^olsten-recruiting-costs]: **National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc.** — "Thus, we hold that although there may be valid reasons for restrictive covenants, the mere cost associated with recruiting and hiring employees is not a legitimate interest protectable by a restrictive covenant in an employment contract." *National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc., 145 N.H. 158 (2000).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8092147/national-employment-service-corp-v-olsten-staffing-service-inc/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20we%20hold%20that%20although,covenant%20in%20an%20employment%20contract.>
+
+[^forbes-patient-goodwill]: **Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes** — "COPA has a legitimate interest in preventing Forbes from appropriating the goodwill of its business, developed in part by Forbes’ contact with patients in his capacity as a COPA physician." *Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440 (1997).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/#:~:text=COPA%20has%20a%20legitimate%20interest,capacity%20as%20a%20COPA%20physician.>
+
+[^near-customer-sphere]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Thus, the restrictive covenant goes far beyond the defendant’s sphere of customer goodwill, and was more restrictive than necessary to protect the plaintiffs’ legitimate interests." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093022/merrimack-valley-wood-products-inc-v-near/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20restrictive%20covenant%20goes,protect%20the%20plaintiffs%E2%80%99%20legitimate%20interests.>
+
+[^forbes-duration-geography]: **Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes** — "A restraint on competition must be narrowly tailored in both geography and duration to protect COPA’s legitimate interest in its goodwill." *Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440 (1997).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/#:~:text=A%20restraint%20on%20competition%20must,legitimate%20interest%20in%20its%20goodwill.>
+
+[^near-good-faith-reformation]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093022/merrimack-valley-wood-products-inc-v-near/#:~:text=Courts%20have%20the%20power%20to,execution%20of%20the%20employment%20contract.>
+
+[^syncom-bad-faith-reformation]: **Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood** — "If the trial court were to determine that the restrictive covenants could not be reformed due to Syncom’s bad faith, then there would be no need to further address their enforceability." *Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1896769/syncom-industries-inc-v-wood/#:~:text=If%20the%20trial%20court%20were,to%20further%20address%20their%20enforceability.>
+
+[^rsa-275-70-preacceptance]: **RSA 275:70** — "Any employer who requires an employee who has not previously been employed by the employer to execute a noncompete agreement as a condition of employment shall provide a copy of such agreement to the potential employee prior to the employee's acceptance of an offer of employment. A noncompete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee as required by this section shall not be enforceable against the employee, but all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect." *RSA 275:70.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-70.htm>
+
+[^rsa-275-70-a-ban]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "No employer shall require a low-wage employee to enter into a noncompete agreement." *RSA 275:70-a, II(a).* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-70-a.htm>
+
+[^rsa-275-70-a-void]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "A noncompete agreement entered into between an employer and a low-wage employee shall be void and unenforceable." *RSA 275:70-a, II(b).* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-70-a.htm>
+
+[^rsa-275-70-a-threshold]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "(b) ‘Low-wage employee’ means an employee who earns an hourly rate less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage." *RSA 275:70-a, I(b).* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXIII/275/275-70-a.htm>
+
+[^rsa-329-31-a-physicians]: **RSA 329:31-a** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a physician licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such physician to also practice medicine in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 329:31-a.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXX/329/329-31-a.htm>
+
+[^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses]: **RSA 326-B:45-a** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a nurse licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such nurse to also practice in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 326-B:45-a.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXX/326-B/326-B-45-a.htm>
+
+[^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns]: **RSA 326-B:45-b** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or establishes the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with an advanced practice registered nurse licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such advanced practice registered nurse to also practice in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provisions of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 326-B:45-b.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXX/326-B/326-B-45-b.htm>
+
+[^rsa-315-18-podiatrists]: **RSA 315:18** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a podiatrist licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such podiatrist to also practice podiatry in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 315:18.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXX/315/315-18.htm>
+
+[^gosselin-sale-covenant]: **Gosselin v. Archibald** — "The terms of the agreement, as set forth in the purchase and sale contract, are reasonable and enforceable." *Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016 (1981).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2059042/gosselin-v-archibald/#:~:text=The%20terms%20of%20the%20agreement%2C,contract%2C%20are%20reasonable%20and%20enforceable.>
+
+[^atronix-assigned-covenant]: **Atronix, Inc. v. Morris** — "Because we conclude that Morris’s non-compete agreement was conveyed to the plaintiff under the plain language of section 2.02(a)(xii), we need not address either the plaintiff’s additional arguments or the defendants’ argument" *Atronix, Inc. v. Morris, 197 A.3d 79 (N.H. 2018).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4546183/atronix-inc-v-kenneth-morris-a/#:~:text=Because%20we%20conclude%20that%20Morris%E2%80%99s,arguments%20or%20the%20defendants%E2%80%99%20argument>
+
+[^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "The first step in determining the reasonableness of a given restraint is to determine whether the restraint was narrowly tailored to protect the employer’s legitimate interests." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320967/acas-acquisitions-precitech-inc-v-hobert/#:~:text=The%20first%20step%20in%20determining,protect%20the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20legitimate%20interests.>
+
+[^hcc-persuasive-limits]: **HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury** — "However, with respect to Woodbury's breach of the noncompete provisions, HCC has not demonstrated irreparable injury or a favorable balance of the equities." *HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury, 289 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D.N.H. 2018).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328330/hcc-specialty-underwriters-inc-v-woodbury/#:~:text=However%2C%20with%20respect%20to%20Woodbury's,favorable%20balance%20of%20the%20equities.>
+
+[^hcc-nondisclosure-granted]: **HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury** — "Therefore, the court issues a preliminary injunction requiring Woodbury to abide by the nondisclosure provisions of the 1996 Agreement." *HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury, 289 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D.N.H. 2018).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328330/hcc-specialty-underwriters-inc-v-woodbury/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20the%20court%20issues%20a,provisions%20of%20the%201996%20Agreement.>
+
+[^rsa-350-b-1-definition]: **RSA 350-B:1** — "IV. ‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." *RSA 350-B:1.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXI/350-B/350-B-1.htm>
+
+[^rsa-350-b-2-injunction]: **RSA 350-B:2** — "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined." *RSA 350-B:2.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXI/350-B/350-B-2.htm>
+
+[^rsa-350-b-7-contracts]: **RSA 350-B:7** — "II. This chapter shall not affect: (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret." *RSA 350-B:7, II.* <https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXI/350-B/350-B-7.htm>
+
+[^gosselin-no-extension]: **Gosselin v. Archibald** — "We cannot agree with the master’s extension of the time limitation of the covenant not to compete." *Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016 (1981).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2059042/gosselin-v-archibald/#:~:text=We%20cannot%20agree%20with%20the%20master%E2%80%99s%20extension,the%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete.>
+
+[^near-reformation-narrowing]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093022/merrimack-valley-wood-products-inc-v-near/#:~:text=Courts%20have%20the%20power%20to,execution%20of%20the%20employment%20contract.>
+
+[^syncom-reformation-open]: **Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood** — "Finally, as the defendants have challenged both the geographic and temporal scope of the restrictive covenants, and have properly preserved those challenges, both aspects of the covenants are open to possible reformation." *Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1896769/syncom-industries-inc-v-wood/#:~:text=Finally%2C%20as%20the%20defendants%20have,are%20open%20to%20possible%20reformation.>