Missouri Non-Compete Agreement

Yes, within limits. Missouri enforces reasonable employee non-competes, but under common law rather than a dedicated statute. Courts in Missouri generally enforce a covenant only to the extent it is reasonable in time and geographic scope and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, meaning the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not simply protection from ordinary competition. The employer bears the burden of proving the restraint is reasonable. A covenant that only stifles competition, or that is broader than needed, is unlikely to be enforced in Missouri.

There is no statutory maximum. Courts in Missouri have generally treated post-employment restrictions of up to about two years as reasonable, though the answer is fact-specific and depends on the industry, the employee's role, and the interest being protected. The Missouri Supreme Court in Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew found a two-year, 50-mile restraint reasonable for the employees at issue. A longer or geographically broader restraint faces greater scrutiny and is more likely to be narrowed or struck in Missouri.

Under Missouri common law a non-compete is enforceable only to the extent it is reasonable and protects a legitimate, protectable interest. Missouri courts recognize two main protectable interests: the employer's trade secrets and its customer contacts, meaning the goodwill and customer relationships an employee developed at the employer's expense. The restraint must be reasonable in duration and geography and no broader than necessary to protect that interest. A covenant designed merely to prevent competition, rather than to protect trade secrets or customer contacts, is not enforceable in Missouri.

No. Missouri has no wage or income threshold that makes a non-compete valid or that exempts lower-paid workers. A reasonable covenant can, in principle, be enforced against an employee at any income level, subject to the common-law reasonableness test. A proposed bill, HCS HB 1202, would have voided non-competes for employees earning $75,000 or less, but it was not enacted and is not Missouri law. Do not rely on that figure or substitute another state's salary threshold when the worker is in Missouri.

Often, yes. Courts in Missouri generally have authority to modify, or blue-pencil, an overbroad covenant and enforce it as narrowed rather than voiding it entirely, so long as the covenant is not wholly unreasonable. In Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew the Missouri Supreme Court narrowed an overbroad non-solicitation clause down to the customers the employees had actually dealt with, then enforced the narrowed version. Missouri courts will not, however, build a reasonable agreement from scratch if the original restraint is entirely unreasonable.

Generally yes. Missouri has no advance-notice statute for non-competes, and courts in Missouri generally treat continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration to support a non-compete that an existing employee signs after employment has begun. This means a Missouri employer can usually ask a current employee to sign a non-compete, with continued employment serving as the consideration. Because this is a common-law rule and depends on the facts, it is prudent to document the consideration and, for new hires, to have the covenant signed at the outset.

They pair the non-compete with, or rely on, a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act (RSMo Sections 417.450 to 417.467). Missouri employers can also use the no-solicit, no-hire, and confidential-information covenants that RSMo Section 431.202 expressly authorizes, which are conclusively presumed reasonable if they last no more than one year. These tools protect trade secrets and customer relationships without having to satisfy the full common-law reasonableness test that governs a non-compete in Missouri.