Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Colorado?
Usually no. For covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 10, 2022, Colorado law makes any covenant not to compete that restricts a person's right to earn compensation for labor void unless it fits a narrow statutory exception. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The governing statute is C.R.S. § 8-2-113. Subsection (2)(a) voids covenants not to compete as the baseline rule, and the enforcing employer bears the burden of fitting the covenant into an exception. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The statute leaves a limited set of covenants in play: non-competes and customer non-solicits for highly compensated workers tailored to protect trade secrets — never where the covenant restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry — plus sale-of-business covenants restricting competition by an owner of an interest in the business, reasonable confidentiality and trade secret provisions, and capped training-repayment provisions. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The sale-of-business and confidentiality carve-outs are sourced in their own sections below.
A covenant that fits a statutory exception is not automatically enforceable. It still must be for the protection of trade secrets and no broader than reasonably necessary, and the separate-notice rule and the other limits described below still apply .
A Colorado covenant not to compete is void by default and survives only where it fits the highly compensated worker exception, so a covenant that does not clear the exception is unenforceable however carefully it is drafted. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The employer seeking to enforce the covenant carries the burden of establishing that it falls within the exception, including at the preliminary-injunction stage, and a recital in the agreement stating that the covenant qualifies does not carry that burden .
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(2)(a) supports Colorado's baseline rule that a covenant not to compete restricting the right to earn compensation for labor is void unless an exception applies.
Except as provided in subsections (2)(b), (2)(d), and (3) of this section, a covenant not to compete that restricts the right of an individual to receive compensation for performance of labor is void.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(a).
Section 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the narrow exception for highly compensated workers where the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary, and its exclusion of any covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry.
Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing an individual who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
Section 8-2-113(3) supports the list of covenants that are not prohibited, including capped training-repayment provisions, confidentiality provisions, and sale-of-business covenants.
A provision providing for an employer's recovery of the expense of educating and training a worker where the training is distinct from normal, on-the-job training and satisfies any other requirements established by the attorney general, by rule, regarding the transferability of the training or credentialing that is available to the employee as a result of the training.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(a).
Phoenix supports the rule that the employer seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete bears the burden of showing it falls within a statutory exception.
In the preliminary injunction context, the employer has the burden to establish that the covenant not to compete falls within one of those narrow exceptions.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
When can a Colorado employer use a non-compete or customer non-solicit agreement?
Colorado allows a non-compete with a worker who earns at least the highly compensated worker threshold, or a customer non-solicit with one who earns at least 60 percent of it, when the covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets, subject to two further limits. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The worker must meet the threshold both when the covenant is entered into and when it is enforced, and the exception never covers a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. In 2026 those thresholds are $130,014 and $78,008.40 in annualized cash compensation. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The worker must meet the threshold both when the covenant is signed and when it is enforced, and the covenant must protect trade secrets and be no broader than reasonably necessary . The controlling figure is the greater of the August 10, 2022 amount or the amount in effect when the covenant is executed, so a covenant is tested against its execution-year threshold, not necessarily the current year . The threshold is reset annually by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's PAY CALC Order, which sets the 2026 highly compensated employee figure at $130,014 . The customer-non-solicit threshold is then derived as 60% of that figure. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The customer non-solicit threshold is pegged to 60% of the same number, and a customer non-solicit must likewise be no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets .
These thresholds do not help with health-care providers. Senate Bill 25-083 added the same carve-out to both the non-compete and the customer-non-solicit exceptions, so a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry is void regardless of compensation .
Earning above the threshold is necessary but not sufficient. Even for a worker far above $130,014, a Colorado non-compete must still be tied to the protection of specific trade secrets and drafted no broader than reasonably necessary — general goodwill or ordinary customer relationships will not support it. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the highly compensated worker requirement, measured both at signing and at enforcement, with a trade-secret and tailoring requirement — and its exclusion of any covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry, which no compensation level satisfies.
Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing an individual who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
Section 8-2-113(2)(d) supports the separate customer non-solicit threshold of sixty percent of the highly compensated worker amount, and its exclusion of any covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry.
Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers governing an individual who, at the time the covenant is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than sixty percent of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the nonsolicitation covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d).
Epstein Becker Green's threshold tracker supports the derived 2026 customer-non-solicit figure of $78,008.40 (60% of the highly compensated worker threshold), which the PAY CALC Order itself does not state.
Effective January 1, 2026, the threshold amount for highly compensated workers is $130,014. Furthermore, an employer cannot subject an employee to a non-solicitation provision where an employee earns less than 60% of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers. Colorado’s 2026 non-solicitation salary threshold is $78,008.40.
See Epstein Becker Green, Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold Changes (Dec. 10, 2025).
The temporary 2026 PAY CALC Order supports the official 2026 highly compensated employee threshold of $130,014 for its January 1–31 effective period.
Highly compensated employees (R. 2.2.11) $130,014 annually, and the EAP salary (row E) weekly
See Temporary 2026 PAY CALC Order, 7 CCR 1103-14, Rule 1.2.1(G) (effective January 2026).
Section 8-2-113(2)(c)(II) supports the rule that the controlling threshold is the greater of the August 10, 2022 amount or the amount in effect when the covenant is executed.
"Threshold amount for highly compensated workers" means the greater of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers as determined by the division of labor standards and statistics in the department of labor and employment: (A) As of August 10, 2022; or (B) At the time the covenant not to compete is executed by the parties.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(c)(II).
SB 25-083 supports the point that the same carve-out applies to the customer-non-solicit exception, so a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry is void regardless of the compensation threshold.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d)).
What notice must a Colorado employer give before a non-compete?
A Colorado employer must give a worker notice of a non-compete in a separate document signed by the worker, and a current worker must receive it at least fourteen days before the earlier of the covenant's effective date or the effective date of the consideration for it. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. An otherwise permissible covenant is void unless a prospective worker receives notice of it and its terms before accepting the employer's offer of employment .
The notice must accompany a complete copy of the agreement, identify the agreement by name, warn that it contains a covenant not to compete that could restrict the worker's options for subsequent employment, and direct the worker to the specific sections or paragraphs containing every covered covenant. It must also be a standalone document, written in clear and conspicuous terms in the performance-communication language, and signed by the worker. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Use the companion Employee Notice of Restrictive Covenants (Colorado), deliver it with the complete agreement, and list each enabled covenant by its exact heading. A notice buried inside an offer letter or omnibus agreement, a generic pointer to the covenant's terms, or a past-tense recital without delivery evidence does not establish compliance. For a current worker, the separate, signed notice must precede the covenant's effective date—or any raise or change that serves as consideration—by at least fourteen days. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(4)(a) supports the fourteen-day advance notice requirement for current workers, measured against the covenant's or new consideration's effective date.
A current worker at least fourteen days before the earlier of: (A) The effective date of the covenant; or (B) The effective date of any additional compensation or change in the terms or conditions of employment that provides consideration for the covenant.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a)(II).
Section 8-2-113(4)(b) supports the requirement that notice be a separate, clear and conspicuous document signed by the worker.
An employer shall provide the notice required in subsection (4)(a) of this section in a separate document from any other covenants between the worker and employer and in clear and conspicuous terms in the language in which the worker and employer communicate about the worker's performance. The notice must be signed by the worker.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(b).
Section 8-2-113(4)(d) supplies the agreement-copy, warning, and exact-section-pointer elements that satisfy the notice requirement.
An employer satisfies the notice requirement of this subsection (4) when the notice: (I) Is provided with a copy of the agreement containing the covenant not to compete; (II) Identifies the agreement by name and states that the agreement contains a covenant not to compete that could restrict the workers' options for subsequent employment following their separation from the employer; and (III) Directs the worker to the specific sections or paragraphs of the agreement that contain the covenant not to compete.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(d).
Section 8-2-113(4)(a) makes an otherwise permissible covenant void unless notice of it and its terms is provided to a prospective worker before the worker accepts the employer's offer of employment.
Any covenant not to compete that is otherwise permissible under subsection (2) or (3) of this section is void unless notice of the covenant not to compete and the terms of the covenant not to compete are provided to: (I) A prospective worker before the worker accepts the employer's offer of employment; or (II) A current worker at least fourteen days before the earlier of: (A) The effective date of the covenant; or (B) The effective date of any additional compensation or change in the terms or conditions of employment that provides consideration for the covenant.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a).
Are non-competes enforceable against Colorado physicians and other health-care providers?
For covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025, Colorado's highly compensated worker exception does not reach a non-compete restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry, so a high salary cannot make such a covenant enforceable. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The statute separately defines a health-care provider to include a certified midwife .
The highly compensated worker exception no longer rescues a covenant that restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry, so a covenant reaching one of those practices fails even where the worker earns well above the wage threshold .
Read the practice list and the defined class separately, because they are not the same. The compensation exceptions are closed for three practices — medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, and dentistry. The defined class of health-care provider is broader, adding a certified midwife, and that broader class is what the patient-communication rule protects: a covenant is deemed to restrict one of the three practices if it stops any health-care provider from telling a patient about a continuing practice, new professional contact information, or the patient's right to choose a provider. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. Certified midwifery is therefore inside the definition but outside the three-practice list, so a covenant restricting only a certified midwife's practice, and leaving patient communications alone, is not excluded on the face of the statute. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. Treat that as an open question rather than a licence: the statute defines a certified midwife into the protected class for one purpose and leaves midwifery out of the practice list for another, which is the kind of mismatch a court may read as a drafting slip. Leave a certified midwife's practice unrestricted.
Colorado previously allowed physician agreements to require liquidated damages tied to a competitive departure, even though an outright practice restraint was void. SB 25-083 removed that path for the listed providers and added patient-communication protections, so a covenant is void if it prevents a departing provider from telling patients about the provider's continuing practice, new contact information, or the patient's right to choose their provider. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
For an agreement entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025, a covenant not to compete or not to solicit customers that restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry is void regardless of the worker's compensation, so the highly compensated worker threshold no longer rescues it. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. Draft to the broader defined class rather than the three-practice list: a certified midwife is a health-care provider for the patient-communication rule, and the bill's fiscal note treats midwifery as covered even though the codified practice list omits it. A clause restricting a departing provider from telling patients about the provider's continuing practice, new professional contact information, or the patient's right to choose a provider is separately void .
Sources for this answer
SB 25-083 supports the rule that the highly compensated worker exception does not apply to covenants restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b)).
SB 25-083 supports the statutory definition of health-care provider — a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse, a certified midwife, or a dentist — which is the class the patient-communication deeming rule protects, and which is broader than the three practices the compensation exceptions are closed for.
"HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, REGISTERED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, LICENSED TO PRACTICE AS A CERTIFIED MIDWIFE, OR LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (adding C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(c)(I.3)).
SB 25-083 supports the patient-communication protections that void a covenant restricting a departing provider from disclosing continuing practice, contact information, or patient choice.
(a) THE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER'S CONTINUING PRACTICE OF MEDICINE; (b) THE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER'S NEW PROFESSIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION; OR (c) THE PATIENT'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE A HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (adding C.R.S. § 8-2-113(5.5)).
The editor's note to C.R.S. § 8-2-113 reports that SB 25-083 applies to covenants not to compete entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025.
Section 2(2) of chapter 366 (SB 25-083), Session Laws of Colorado 2025, provides that the act changing this section applies to covenants not to compete entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113 (editor's note on the applicability of S.B. 25-083).
Are sale-of-business non-competes enforceable in Colorado, including for minority owners?
Colorado permits a non-compete tied to the sale of a business, an ownership share, or substantially all of its assets that restricts an owner of an interest in the business, subject to a duration cap for some minority owners . For a minority owner who received the ownership share as equity compensation or otherwise in connection with services, the covenant's maximum duration in years is the total consideration the owner received from the sale divided by the owner's average annualized cash compensation from the business, including income on the ownership interest, over the preceding two years or the owner's period of affiliation, whichever is shorter. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The cap applies to a minority owner who received the ownership share as equity compensation or otherwise in connection with services rendered. For such an owner, the maximum duration in years equals the total consideration the owner received from the sale divided by the owner's average annualized cash compensation from the business over the preceding two years (or the owner's tenure, if shorter) . So a qualifying minority owner who received $50,000 from the sale and averaged $100,000 in annual compensation could be bound for at most half a year.
A flat multi-year sale-of-business term reused for a minority owner who took equity as compensation for services routinely exceeds the statutory cap. The maximum duration in years equals the total sale consideration divided by the owner's average annual compensation, and any term longer than that ratio is unenforceable to the extent it exceeds the cap .
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(3)(c) supports the sale-of-business covenant that subsection (2) does not prohibit, which as amended reaches only a covenant restricting competition by an owner of an interest in the business.
For an individual who owns a minority ownership share of the business and who received their ownership share in the business as equity compensation or otherwise in connection with services rendered, the duration in years of a covenant not to compete described in this subsection (3)(c) must not exceed a number calculated by the total consideration received by the individual from the sale divided by the average annualized cash compensation received by the individual from the business, including income received on account of their ownership interest during the preceding two years or during the period of time that the individual was affiliated with the business, whichever period of time is shorter.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(c).
SB 25-083 supports the duration cap on a minority owner's sale-of-business non-compete, calculated from total sale consideration divided by average annualized cash compensation.
THE DURATION IN YEARS OF A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION (3)(c) MUST NOT EXCEED A NUMBER CALCULATED BY THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE SALE DIVIDED BY THE AVERAGE ANNUALIZED CASH COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE BUSINESS, INCLUDING INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR OWNERSHIP INTEREST DURING THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS OR DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE BUSINESS, WHICHEVER PERIOD OF TIME IS SHORTER.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(c)).
SB 25-083's amended § 8-2-113(3)(c) permits a covenant not to compete related to the purchase and sale of a business, an ownership share in a business, or substantially all of its assets that restricts competition by an owner of an interest in the business.
(3) The following covenants are not prohibited by subsection (2) of this section: (b) A reasonable confidentiality provision OR TRADE SECRET PROVISION relevant to the employer's business that does not prohibit disclosure of information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, whether gained on the job or otherwise, information that is readily ascertainable to the public, or information that a worker otherwise has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct; (c) A covenant for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business; or NOT TO COMPETE RELATED TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF A BUSINESS, A DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP SHARE IN A BUSINESS, OR ALL OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE ASSETS OF A BUSINESS THAT RESTRICTS COMPETITION BY AN OWNER OF AN INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS.
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(c)).
Can a Colorado employer recover training costs through a repayment agreement (TRAP)?
A Colorado employer may recover training costs through a repayment provision only when the training is distinct from normal on-the-job training and meets the attorney general's transferability rules, and only up to reasonable costs that decrease over the two years after the training .
If the employer overreaches, the attorney general can recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery on an unlawful training-repayment provision .
A training-repayment provision reaches only the reasonable cost of training that is distinct from normal on-the-job training and that satisfies the attorney general's transferability rules, with the recoverable amount decreasing over the two years after the training; ordinary onboarding, routine skills training, and a flat amount untethered from documented cost fall outside the carve-out . The exposure for overreaching runs to the attorney general, who may recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery made in violation of the carve-out .
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(3)(a) supports the limits on training-repayment provisions: distinct training, attorney-general transferability rules, reasonable costs, and a two-year decreasing recovery.
A provision providing for an employer's recovery of the expense of educating and training a worker where the training is distinct from normal, on-the-job training and satisfies any other requirements established by the attorney general, by rule, regarding the transferability of the training or credentialing that is available to the employee as a result of the training. The employer's recovery is limited to the reasonable costs of the training and decreases over the course of the two years subsequent to the training
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(a).
Section 8-2-113(8)(b) supports the attorney general's authority to recover treble damages for an unlawful training-cost recovery.
The attorney general may recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery by an employer in violation of subsection (3)(a) of this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Are confidentiality and nondisclosure covenants still allowed in Colorado?
Colorado's non-compete statute expressly permits a reasonable confidentiality provision relevant to the employer's business, so long as it does not bar disclosure of general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, publicly ascertainable information, or legally protected disclosures .
The carve-out has limits built in: a confidentiality provision cannot bar the worker from disclosing information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, information readily ascertainable to the public, or information the worker has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct .
A confidentiality clause drafted so broadly that it functions as a non-compete falls outside the statutory carve-out and risks treatment as a void restraint. The carve-out reaches only a reasonable confidentiality provision relevant to the employer's business that preserves the worker's right to use general skills and knowledge and to make legally protected disclosures .
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(3)(b) supports the carve-out for a reasonable confidentiality provision or trade secret provision that does not bar disclosure of general skills, publicly ascertainable information, or legally protected conduct.
A reasonable confidentiality provision or trade secret provision relevant to the employer's business that does not prohibit disclosure of information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill, or experience, whether gained on the job or otherwise, information that is readily ascertainable to the public, or information that a worker otherwise has a right to disclose as legally protected conduct
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)(b).
What are the penalties for presenting or enforcing a void Colorado non-compete?
A Colorado employer that enters into, presents, or attempts to enforce a void non-compete is liable for actual damages plus a penalty of $5,000 per worker or prospective worker harmed, subject to the statute's good-faith exception. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. If the employer shows it acted in good faith with reasonable grounds for believing it was not violating the statute, a court may award no penalty or a reduced one .
A harmed worker can recover actual damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees, and the attorney general can seek injunctive relief and penalties . Separately, using force, threats, or intimidation to keep a person from a lawful occupation is a class 2 misdemeanor .
The penalty attaches to merely presenting a void covenant, not just to suing on one. Before asking a Colorado worker to sign, confirm the worker meets the compensation threshold, the covenant protects trade secrets, the worker is not a covered health-care provider, and the notice rule is satisfied — because an unlawful presentation alone can trigger the $5,000-per-worker penalty. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(8)(a) supports the rule that entering into, presenting, or attempting to enforce a void covenant is itself prohibited conduct.
An employer shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(a).
Section 8-2-113(8)(b) supports the $5,000-per-worker penalty plus actual damages, and the private and attorney-general enforcement scheme.
An employer that violates subsection (8)(a) of this section is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Section 8-2-113(1.5) supports the separate class 2 misdemeanor for using force, threats, or intimidation to prevent lawful work.
It is unlawful to use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place the person sees fit.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(1.5)(a).
Section 8-2-113(8)(c) lets a court award no penalty or a reduced penalty if the employer shows it acted in good faith with reasonable grounds for believing it was not violating the section.
In any action brought under this subsection (8), if the employer shows that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the employer's act or omission was not a violation of this section, the court may, in its sound discretion, award the worker or workers no penalty or award a penalty of any amount not to exceed the amount specified in subsection (8)(b) of this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(c).
Can another state's law or court govern a Colorado worker's non-compete?
Colorado law governs the enforceability of a non-compete for a worker who primarily resided and worked in Colorado at termination, and that worker cannot be required to litigate enforceability outside Colorado, whatever the contract says. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
This forecloses the common strategy of using a Delaware or New York choice-of-law clause and an out-of-state forum to escape Colorado's limits for a Colorado employee .
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(6) supports the rule that Colorado law governs enforceability for a worker who primarily resided and worked in Colorado at termination, notwithstanding a contrary clause.
Notwithstanding any contractual provision to the contrary, Colorado law governs the enforceability of a covenant not to compete for a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided and worked in Colorado.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(6).
Section 8-2-113(6) supports the rule that a Colorado-based worker cannot be required to adjudicate enforceability outside Colorado.
A covenant not to compete that applies to a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided or worked in Colorado may not require the worker to adjudicate the enforceability of the covenant outside of Colorado.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(6).
Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Colorado non-compete?
Continued at-will employment is adequate consideration for a Colorado non-compete signed after employment begins, because the Colorado Supreme Court held in Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner that an employer's forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee is adequate consideration .
That common-law rule survives the statute, but it now operates alongside the procedural rules: for a current worker, the employer still must give the separate fourteen-day notice before the covenant or its consideration takes effect. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Lucht's supports the rule that an employer's forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee is adequate consideration for a non-compete.
We hold that an employer that forbears from terminating an existing at-will employee forbears from exercising a legal right, and that therefore such forbearance constitutes adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement
See Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058 (Colo. 2011).
Section 8-2-113(4)(a) supports the rule that for a current worker the covenant or its new consideration cannot take effect until fourteen days after the required notice.
A current worker at least fourteen days before the earlier of: (A) The effective date of the covenant; or (B) The effective date of any additional compensation or change in the terms or conditions of employment that provides consideration for the covenant.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a)(II).
Will a Colorado court blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?
A Colorado court has discretion to blue-pencil an overbroad non-compete but is not required to, and contracting parties cannot obligate a court to do so. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
In 23 LTD v. Herman, the court explained that it is not a court's function to rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy, and a severability clause cannot compel the court to do so. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The risk is compounded by the penalty regime: because merely presenting a void covenant is unlawful, an employer cannot safely assume a court will trim an overbroad covenant into a lawful one . For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the Colorado non-compete reviewer checklist walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
A Colorado court has discretion to narrow an overbroad covenant but no obligation to do so, and the parties cannot contractually compel it, so scope, duration, and geography that reach past the minimum the trade-secret interest requires stand exposed — and separable tiers survive where an aggressive savings clause does not. Presenting a void covenant carries its own penalty, so a covenant drafted broad in reliance on discretionary judicial repair adds statutory exposure on top of unenforceability. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
23 LTD supports the rule that Colorado trial courts have discretion — but no obligation — to blue pencil an unenforceable covenant.
they have made clear that trial courts have the discretion to blue pencil unenforceable noncompete provisions, at least to some extent.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
23 LTD supports the rule that a court will not rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy.
It is not the function of a court to write or rewrite contracts for parties to enable enforcement of a contract that, as written, violates the public policy of the state.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
23 LTD supports the rule that parties cannot contractually obligate a court to blue pencil unreasonable covenants.
Thus, parties to an employment or noncompete agreement cannot contractually obligate a court to blue pencil noncompete provisions that it determines are unreasonable.
See 23 LTD v. Herman, 2019 COA 113.
Section 8-2-113(8)(a) supports the drafting risk that presenting a void covenant is itself prohibited, so an employer cannot rely on judicial narrowing.
An employer shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(a).
Are employee non-solicitation (no-hire) clauses enforceable in Colorado?
A Colorado clause barring a former employee from actively soliciting the employer's employees is most likely enforceable, because in Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell the Colorado Court of Appeals enforced one despite the invalidity of the accompanying non-compete. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The question remains unsettled because the statute ties customer non-solicits to the 60 percent threshold but does not separately address employee non-solicits .
Phoenix reasoned that, unlike a customer non-solicit, an agreement not to solicit a former employer's employees does not impair the worker's own ability to make a living, so it can be enforceable despite an invalid non-compete. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Phoenix predates the 2022 overhaul and the attorney general's active scrutiny of no-poach practices. Treat an overbroad employee no-hire clause as a litigation risk if it functions as a de facto restraint on worker mobility, and keep it limited to active solicitation tied to a legitimate interest. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Phoenix supports the rule that an employee non-solicitation provision limited to active solicitation can be enforceable even when an accompanying non-compete is invalid.
Where a nonsolicitation provision is limited to prohibiting only initiating contacts or "active" solicitation of the employer's employees, it is enforceable, despite the invalidity of an accompanying noncompetition provision.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Phoenix supports the distinction that an agreement not to solicit employees does not impair the former employee's ability to make a living, unlike a customer non-solicit.
In contrast, an agreement not to solicit employees would not impair the former employee's ability to make a living.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Phoenix supports the holding distinguishing an enforceable employee non-solicit from an invalid customer non-solicit when the non-compete is void.
We conclude that, although the invalidity of the noncompetition provision did not render invalid Dowell's agreement not to solicit Phoenix's employees, it rendered invalid Dowell's agreement not to solicit Phoenix's customers.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Section 8-2-113(2)(d) supports the point that the statute addresses customer non-solicits at the 60% threshold and does not separately address employee non-solicits.
Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to solicit customers governing an individual who, at the time the covenant is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than sixty percent of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the nonsolicitation covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(d).
Does a Colorado non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?
In our review we found no Colorado statute or appellate decision approving the automatic tolling or extension of a non-compete's restricted period during a breach or while litigation is pending. The Colorado Court of Appeals in Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell upheld a trial court's refusal to extend an injunction beyond the agreement's one-year term, and the statute requires the worker to meet the compensation threshold when the covenant is enforced. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The best Colorado authority points toward caution. In Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, the court found no error in refusing to extend a preliminary injunction beyond the one-year term the parties had specified . And the statute requires the worker to meet the compensation threshold both when the covenant is entered into and when it is enforced, so a covenant whose enforcement is pushed later must still satisfy the statute at that later time .
Open question: Colorado law is unsettled on whether an extension-on-breach clause is enforceable after the stated restricted period runs. Do not assume a court will toll or extend an expired Colorado covenant, and remember that a covenant must still meet the statutory threshold at the time of enforcement. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Phoenix supports the caution that a Colorado court may decline to extend a restraint beyond the term specified in the agreement.
Consequently, we discern no error in the trial court's refusing to extend the terms of the preliminary injunction beyond the one-year term specified in the parties' agreement.
See Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, 176 P.3d 835 (Colo. App. 2007).
Section 8-2-113(2)(b) supports the point that the worker must meet the compensation threshold at the time the covenant is enforced, which constrains any later extension.
Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing an individual who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b).
What are the key recent developments in Colorado non-compete law?
Colorado has tightened its non-compete law in four steps since 2022, moving from a title-based exception regime to objective wage thresholds, then to training-repayment and health-care restrictions. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 4 sources in this group.
- March 1, 2022: A class 2 misdemeanor took effect for using force, threats, or intimidation to keep a person from a lawful occupation .
- August 10, 2022: House Bill 22-1317 replaced the old executive-and-management exception with the highly compensated worker thresholds, added the separate-notice rule, and created the $5,000-per-worker penalty .
- August 7, 2024: House Bill 24-1324 tightened training-repayment provisions and authorized the attorney general to recover treble damages for unlawful recovery attempts .
- August 6, 2025: Senate Bill 25-083 voided non-competes for health-care providers and capped minority-owner sale-of-business covenants by formula .
Because the wage thresholds reset every year and the health-care and minority-owner rules apply to agreements entered into or renewed on or after their effective dates, recheck the current C.R.S. § 8-2-113 text and the latest PAY CALC Order before relying on a Colorado covenant or updating a form. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Section 8-2-113(1.5) supports the class 2 misdemeanor for using force, threats, or intimidation to prevent lawful work, effective March 1, 2022.
A person who violates this subsection (1.5) commits a class 2 misdemeanor, as defined in section 18-1.3-501.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(1.5)(b).
Section 8-2-113(8)(b) reflects the $5,000-per-worker penalty added by House Bill 22-1317, effective August 10, 2022.
An employer that violates subsection (8)(a) of this section is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
Section 8-2-113(8)(b) reflects the treble-damages authority over training-repayment violations added by House Bill 24-1324, effective August 7, 2024.
The attorney general may recover three times the amount of any recovery or attempted recovery by an employer in violation of subsection (3)(a) of this section.
See C.R.S. § 8-2-113(8)(b).
SB 25-083 supports the 2025 amendment removing the highly compensated worker exception for covenants restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry — so the subsection (2)(a) void rule applies to those providers.
EXCEPT FOR A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE THAT RESTRICTS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, THE PRACTICE OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSING, OR THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THIS STATE, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete
See S.B. 25-083, 75th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2025) (amending C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b)).
Epstein Becker Green's tracker supports the point that the Colorado threshold is updated annually, reaching $130,014 for 2026.
Effective January 1, 2026, the threshold amount for highly compensated workers is $130,014.
See Epstein Becker Green, Raising the Cost of Noncompetes: 2026 State Noncompete Salary Threshold Changes (Dec. 10, 2025).
What does federal law require a non-compete or confidentiality agreement in Colorado to say about whistleblowers and pay?
An employee confidentiality, non-compete, or invention assignment agreement signed or updated now that governs trade secrets or other confidential information must give the Defend Trade Secrets Act whistleblower-immunity notice, and for employees the National Labor Relations Act covers, Section 7 of that Act protects concerted activity, including joining together over pay and working conditions, that a broad confidentiality clause can restrict. The employer may satisfy the notice duty by cross-referencing a qualifying policy document provided to the employee, but an employer that omits the notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act in an action against an employee who was not given notice.
The notice describes a federal immunity: an individual cannot be held liable under federal or state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal. For an agreement signed or updated now, the duty to give that notice reaches any agreement with an employee that governs trade secrets or other confidential information, whatever else the agreement does.
Section 7 gives employees the National Labor Relations Act covers a statutory right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, including joining together to improve pay and working conditions. For employees the Act covers, the Board's work-rule standard adopted in 2023 makes a rule presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights; an employer can rebut that presumption only by showing a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot serve with a more narrowly tailored rule. The 2023 standard may change, but the Section 7 right it enforces is statutory. State law may add its own requirements for the same clauses.
A form carried over without the immunity notice, or a cross-reference to a reporting policy the employee never received, leaves the confidentiality clause without a valid notice, so the Act's exemplary damages and attorney fees are unavailable against that employee. A Confidential Information definition that sweeps in pay and working conditions with no carve-out exposes the employer to an unfair-labor-practice finding for employees the Act covers.
Sources for this answer
An individual is immune from criminal and civil liability under federal and state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal.
An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that— (A) is made— (i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1).
An employer must give notice of the trade-secret whistleblower immunity in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
An employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A).
An employer complies with the notice requirement by cross-referencing a policy document, provided to the employee, that sets out the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
An employer shall be considered to be in compliance with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A) if the employer provides a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(B).
An employer that does not give the required notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees in a trade-secret action against an employee who did not receive it.
If an employer does not comply with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A), the employer may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 1836(b)(3) in an action against an employee to whom notice was not provided.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(C).
Section 7 gives employees the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, the statutory basis for keeping discussion of pay and working conditions outside confidentiality restrictions.
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
See 29 U.S.C. § 157 (NLRA § 7).
The National Labor Relations Board protects the right of private-sector employees, with or without a union, to join together to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Established in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees from unfair labor practices and protects the right of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve wages, benefits and working conditions.
See NLRB Office of Public Affairs, news release of Feb. 21, 2023 (agency mission statement).
Under the work-rule standard the Board adopted in 2023, a rule with a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot advance with a more narrowly tailored rule.
Under the new standard adopted in Stericycle, the General Counsel must prove that a challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their rights. If the General Counsel does so, then the rule is presumptively unlawful. However, the employer may rebut the presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.
See Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023); NLRB Office of Public Affairs, Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules (Aug. 2, 2023).