Ohio Non-Compete Agreement

Q: Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Ohio?

Yes, so long as the covenant is reasonable. Ohio has no non-compete statute; the rule comes straight from the Ohio Supreme Court in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975). Raimonde enforces a covenant only to the extent it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and does not injure the public. An Ohio judge runs that three-part test against each agreement, so a tailored, properly supported non-compete stands while an overbroad one gets narrowed or thrown out.

Q: How long can a non-compete last in Ohio?

There is no statutory ceiling, because Ohio law on this is entirely judge-made. An Ohio court measures the term against the Raimonde reasonableness test and has typically upheld restraints of roughly six months to two years, growing more skeptical as the period lengthens. Duration is never judged alone; it is weighed alongside the geographic reach and the hardship the restraint places on the worker. Any term longer than the employer genuinely needs to protect its legitimate interests risks being cut down or refused outright.

Q: What makes a non-compete enforceable in Ohio?

Reasonableness under Raimonde. The covenant must be no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, must not impose undue hardship on the employee, and must not be injurious to the public. In applying that standard, Ohio courts ask whether the time and space limits are sensible, whether the employee was the sole contact with customers, whether the employee held confidential information or trade secrets, and whether the clause blocks genuinely unfair competition rather than the worker's ordinary right to earn a living. Tie the territory to where the employee actually worked.

Q: Is continued employment enough consideration for an Ohio non-compete?

Usually, yes. In Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242, 2004-Ohio-786, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an at-will employer's forbearance from discharging an at-will employee is by itself sufficient consideration for a non-compete an existing worker signs. That puts Ohio ahead of states demanding a fresh raise, promotion, or benefit for the same signature. Even so, layering on extra consideration such as a bonus or promotion strengthens an Ohio covenant and blunts a later challenge to it.

Q: Will an Ohio court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

It may, but it does not have to. Raimonde v. Van Vlerah scrapped the rigid blue-pencil rule and authorizes Ohio courts to modify an overbroad covenant into a reasonable one instead of discarding the whole agreement. Reformation, though, is discretionary. In Kross Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Groundworks Ohio, L.L.C. (2024), an Ohio appeals court upheld a trial court that refused to reform a covenant because fixing it would have meant completely rewriting it. Since a judge can simply decline, draft the time, territory, and scope reasonably from the outset.

Q: Is there a salary threshold for non-competes in Ohio?

No. Ohio has passed no statute tying non-compete validity to a wage or income figure, and enforceability does not rise or fall on the employee's pay. What governs instead is the common-law Raimonde reasonableness test. Bills to curb non-competes, including for healthcare workers, have surfaced in the legislature but none has become law as of 2026. When the worker is employed in Ohio, do not import a salary cutoff from another state that happens to have one.

Q: How do Ohio employers protect trade secrets without a non-compete?

They lean on a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement together with the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (R.C. 1333.61 et seq.), which lets a business guard and sue over misused trade secrets. Unlike a non-compete, a confidentiality agreement is not boxed in by the same time and territory reasonableness limits, so it can shield trade secrets and customer data even where a covenant not to compete would be shaky against a particular worker. That is why many Ohio employers run both instruments side by side.

Q: Does the FTC non-compete rule change anything in Ohio?

No. The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rule would have banned most non-competes across the country, but a federal court set it aside before its effective date, so it never took force and its status has stayed unsettled. Whatever becomes of the federal rule, employee non-competes in Ohio are governed independently by Ohio's own common law, so a reasonable, adequately supported covenant remains enforceable here just as it was before.

Ohio enforces reasonable employee non-competes under common law using the Raimonde three-part test. No statute, no wage threshold. Attorney review available.

Introduction

Ohio is one of the states with no non-compete statute at all. No code section lists when an employee covenant is valid, no statutory maximum term exists, and no salary cutoff applies; the whole subject is governed by Ohio Supreme Court case law. The decision that controls is Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975). Raimonde holds that a covenant not to compete is reasonable, and therefore enforceable, only to the extent it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. That three-part reasonableness test, not a checklist in a statute, is what an Ohio judge applies. In weighing it, courts here look at whether the covenant carries sensible time and space limits, whether the departing worker was the sole point of contact with customers, and whether that worker held confidential information or trade secrets. Ohio also breaks from many states on consideration. In Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber (2004), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that an employer's forbearance from firing an at-will worker, meaning continued at-will employment itself, is enough to support a non-compete an existing employee signs, so a fresh raise or promotion is not strictly required. Raimonde further equips Ohio courts to reform, or narrow, an overbroad covenant instead of voiding it, though a later appeals court in Kross Acquisition made clear that reformation is discretionary and a judge may refuse to rewrite a badly drafted clause. Underneath all of this, a non-compete is simply a contract in which a worker agrees not to compete with a business for a set time and area after leaving. This page maps Ohio's common-law rules and offers a template scoped to them; it is a state-law overview, not a promise that any given clause will hold up.

0/5000

Key Things to Know

1
The starting point in Ohio is that there is no non-compete statute to point to. Enforceability of an employee covenant is decided under Ohio Supreme Court case law, chiefly Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), which asks whether the restraint is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, spares the employee undue hardship, and leaves the public uninjured.
2
A non-compete is still a binding contract here: a worker agrees not to compete with the business for a set time and area after leaving. When that covenant is reasonable and properly supported, an Ohio court will enforce it.
3
Ohio sets no salary or income cutoff. Because the test is Raimonde reasonableness rather than a wage line drawn by statute, what the employee earns does not decide the question, and another state's dollar threshold should never be borrowed for an Ohio worker.
4
Duration and territory are judged case by case. Ohio courts have generally sustained restraints running about six months to two years and expect a geographic reach tied to where the employer actually operates; the further a covenant stretches past that, the harder a judge scrutinizes it, and the more likely it is narrowed or refused.
5
Consideration is unusually employer-friendly in Ohio. Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber (Ohio 2004) treats continued at-will employment, the employer's forbearance from discharging the worker, as sufficient consideration for a non-compete an existing employee signs; a new raise or promotion is not strictly required, though extra consideration makes the covenant sturdier.
6
An overbroad covenant is not automatically dead. Raimonde discarded the rigid blue-pencil rule and lets Ohio courts modify a covenant into a reasonable one, yet that reformation is discretionary: Kross Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Groundworks Ohio, L.L.C. (2024) confirms a judge may decline to rewrite a fundamentally overbroad clause.
7
Because reasonableness limits every Ohio non-compete, many employers pair it with a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement backed by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (R.C. 1333.61 et seq.), which guards trade secrets and customer data without the same time and territory constraints.

Key decisions before you file

Before you file a Non-Compete Agreement in Ohio, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Non-Compete Agreement guide walks through them.

Open the Non-Compete Agreement guide

Customize your Non-Compete Agreement Template with DocDraft

OHIO NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT (RESTRICTIVE COVENANT) (Governed by Ohio common law; Ohio has no non-compete statute)

OHIO NOTE: Ohio enforces employee non-competes through Ohio Supreme Court case law rather than any statute. Under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975), this covenant binds only to the extent it is no greater than required to protect the Employer's legitimate interests, imposes no undue hardship on the Employee, and does not injure the public. Continued at-will employment is itself sufficient consideration in Ohio (Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 2004), though adding a raise, bonus, or promotion makes the covenant sturdier.

PARTIES. This Non-Compete Agreement is made on [DATE] between [EMPLOYER NAME] (Employer) and [EMPLOYEE NAME] (Employee).
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTEREST. Because Raimonde enforces a covenant only where it guards a genuine interest, the parties identify the interest(s) at stake: [ ] trade secrets; [ ] valuable confidential business information; [ ] substantial relationships with specific customers or clients; [ ] customer goodwill; [ ] specialized training. The Employee acknowledges access to the interest(s) checked above.
CONSIDERATION. This covenant rests on consideration recognized under Ohio law: [ ] initial offer of employment (new hire); [ ] continued at-will employment (forbearance from discharge); [ ] promotion or increase in wages; [ ] signing bonus; [ ] specialized training; [ ] access to new confidential information. Ohio treats continued at-will employment alone as adequate, but adding value strengthens the covenant.
NON-COMPETE COVENANT. For [DURATION, e.g. 6 to 24 months] after the Employee's employment ends, the Employee will not, within [SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA tied to where the Employer does business and where the Employee actually worked], perform services in [SPECIFIED LINE OF BUSINESS] that compete with the Employer. The parties intend the time, area, and scope to be no greater than required to protect the interest(s) above.
REASONABLENESS (Raimonde test). The parties intend this restraint to be no greater than required to protect the Employer's legitimate interests, to spare the Employee undue hardship, and to leave the public uninjured. Definite time and geographic limits are stated so the covenant reads as reasonable under Ohio common law rather than an unlawful restraint of trade.
NON-SOLICITATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY. During the covenant period the Employee will not solicit the Employer's covered customers or employees, and the Employee will not use or disclose the Employer's confidential information or trade secrets, consistent with the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (R.C. 1333.61 et seq.). This duty stands on its own and outlasts the non-compete.
REFORMATION AND GOVERNING LAW. Ohio law governs this agreement. Should any restraint be found overbroad, the parties ask the court to modify it to the extent reasonable under Raimonde, while understanding that an Ohio court may, but need not, reform the covenant instead of enforcing it as written (Kross Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Groundworks Ohio, L.L.C., 2024).

[EMPLOYER NAME] [EMPLOYEE NAME]

Signature and date Signature and date

Note: Ohio enforces reasonable non-competes under common law (Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, Ohio 1975) and accepts continued at-will employment as consideration (Lake Land v. Columber, Ohio 2004). Confirm that your duration, geographic area, and protectable interest are reasonable before relying on this covenant. For the generic template and other states, see the full Non-Compete Agreement template hub.

Ohio Requirements for Non-Compete Agreement

Employee Non-Competes Are Enforceable
In Ohio a reasonable employee non-compete is enforceable, but the rule is common law, not a statute. Ohio has no non-compete statute; enforceability comes from Ohio Supreme Court decisions. Under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (Ohio 1975), a covenant is valid only to the extent it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.
Governed by Common Law, Not a Statute
Ohio has not enacted a general non-compete statute, so there is no statutory checklist or maximum term. Courts in Ohio decide enforceability case by case under the common-law reasonableness standard from Raimonde v. Van Vlerah. Because the standard is judge-made, careful, narrowly tailored drafting matters more here than pointing to a statutory safe harbor.
The Raimonde Three-Part Test
Under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, an Ohio non-compete is reasonable only if it is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interests, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. Courts in Ohio have generally upheld restraints of about six months to two years and expect a territory tied to where the employer does business and the employee actually worked. A restraint with no reasonable limit is vulnerable to being narrowed or refused.
Continued Employment Is Sufficient Consideration
In Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242, 2004-Ohio-786, the Ohio Supreme Court held that forbearance by an at-will employer from discharging an at-will employee is sufficient consideration for a non-compete signed by an existing employee. Ohio is therefore more employer-friendly than states that require a fresh raise or promotion, though adding extra consideration strengthens the covenant and reduces the risk of a later challenge.
No Wage or Income Threshold
Ohio has no salary or income threshold that makes a non-compete valid or void. Enforceability turns on the common-law Raimonde reasonableness test, not on how much the employee earns. Proposals to restrict non-competes, including for healthcare workers, have been introduced but have not become law as of 2026. Do not substitute another state's dollar threshold when the worker is in Ohio.
Courts May Reform an Overbroad Covenant
Raimonde rejected the rigid blue-pencil rule and lets Ohio courts modify or amend an overbroad covenant to make it reasonable rather than voiding it. But reformation is discretionary: in Kross Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Groundworks Ohio, L.L.C. (2024-Ohio-592), an appeals court held a trial court was not required to reform a covenant where doing so would mean completely rewriting it. Draft the time, territory, and scope reasonably from the start.
Legitimate Business Interest Required
An Ohio non-compete must protect a legitimate business interest, such as trade secrets, valuable confidential information, substantial customer relationships, goodwill, or specialized training, and must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest. Courts in Ohio distinguish restraints that prevent unfair competition, which are enforceable, from those that merely stifle ordinary competition or the employee's own skill and experience, which are not.
Protect Trade Secrets With an NDA Too
Because a non-compete must be reasonable under Raimonde, many Ohio employers also use a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (R.C. 1333.61 et seq.). A confidentiality agreement protects trade secrets and customer data without the same time and territory reasonableness limits that govern a non-compete, so the two tools are often used together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Ohio?

How long can a non-compete last in Ohio?

What makes a non-compete enforceable in Ohio?

Is continued employment enough consideration for an Ohio non-compete?

Will an Ohio court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Is there a salary threshold for non-competes in Ohio?

How do Ohio employers protect trade secrets without a non-compete?

Does the FTC non-compete rule change anything in Ohio?

Introduction

Key Things to Know

Key decisions before you file

Customize your Non-Compete Agreement Template with DocDraft

Ohio Requirements for Non-Compete Agreement

Employee Non-Competes Are Enforceable

Governed by Common Law, Not a Statute

The Raimonde Three-Part Test

Continued Employment Is Sufficient Consideration

No Wage or Income Threshold

Courts May Reform an Overbroad Covenant

Legitimate Business Interest Required

Protect Trade Secrets With an NDA Too

Frequently Asked Questions