{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "connecticut", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Connecticut", "description": "Connecticut generally enforces non-competes only when the restraint is reasonable under common law and not displaced by an occupation-specific statutory limit.", "state": "Connecticut", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Connecticut enforces employee non-competes only if reasonable under common law, but several occupation-specific statutes cap or void covenants for covered workers.", "keyLaw": "common law (Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976)); occupation statutes", "exceptions": "Physician/PA/APRN 1-yr & 15-mile caps; security guards; broadcast employees; homemaker-companion/home-health bans", "courtNarrowing": "unsettled", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Silent — open question", "maxLength": "No general statutory cap; physicians/PAs/APRNs capped at 1 year", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Enforced under common-law reasonableness to protect the goodwill the buyer purchased", "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies", "employeeNonSolicit": "Same Scott reasonableness test as non-competes; no Connecticut case squarely on point in our review" }, "about": [ "Connecticut non-compete agreements", "Connecticut restrictive covenants", "Scott v. General Iron reasonableness test", "Connecticut non-compete consideration", "Connecticut physician non-compete statute", "Connecticut home health worker non-compete ban", "Connecticut trade secrets" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-connecticut" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Connecticut?", "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. Connecticut is a reasonableness state, not a general ban state, and an employee non-compete is enforceable only if it is partial, reasonable, protective of a fair employer interest, not unduly harsh on the employee, and not injurious to the public interest.", "sources": [ { "id": "scott-employee-noncompete-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20valid,the%20interests%20of%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Scott supports Connecticut's common-law rule that an employee non-compete must be partial, reasonable, protective of a fair employer interest, and consistent with the public interest.", "verbatimQuote": "In order to be valid and binding, a covenant which restricts the activities of an employee following the termination of his employment must be partial and restricted in its operation “in respect either to time or place, . . . and must be reasonable — that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-employee-noncompete-reasonableness" }, { "id": "scott-employee-livelihood", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=The%20interests%20of%20the%20employee,supporting%20himself%20and%20his%20family.", "proposition": "Scott supports the employee-livelihood side of Connecticut's non-compete reasonableness test.", "verbatimQuote": "The interests of the employee himself must also be protected, and a restrictive covenant is unenforceable if by its terms the employee is precluded from pursuing his occupation and thus prevented from supporting himself and his family.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-employee-livelihood" }, { "id": "physician-statutory-cap-overview", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p(b)(1).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_370.htm#sec_20-14p", "proposition": "Section 20-14p supports Connecticut's separate statutory limits for physician non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: (A) Necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; (B) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such business interest; and (C) otherwise consistent with the law and public policy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-physician-statutory-cap-overview" }, { "id": "home-health-worker-ban-overview", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-681", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-681.", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_400o.htm#sec_20-681", "proposition": "Section 20-681 supports the statutory ban on homemaker, companion, and home-health service non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "Any covenant not to compete is against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-home-health-worker-ban-overview" } ] }, { "slug": "protectable-interests", "label": "What interests are protectable?", "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a Connecticut non-compete?", "answerText": "Trade secrets, confidential information, customer lists, and customer goodwill are the core interests that can justify a tailored Connecticut restraint.", "sources": [ { "id": "scott-customer-confidential-information", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=The%20plaintiff%E2%80%99s%20knowledge%20of%20the,a%20reasonable%20period%20of%20time.", "proposition": "Scott supports protecting customer lists and other confidential information for a reasonable period.", "verbatimQuote": "The plaintiff’s knowledge of the defendant’s customer list was a potential threat to the defendant’s business, and the defendant was entitled to protect that and other confidential information for a reasonable period of time.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-customer-confidential-information" }, { "id": "roessler-customer-goodwill-protection", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Roessler v. Burwell", "citation": "Roessler v. Burwell, 119 Conn. 289 (1934).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3323907/roessler-v-burwell/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3323907/roessler-v-burwell/#:~:text=The%20limitation%20of%20the%20solicitation,had%20done%20in%20the%20past.", "proposition": "Roessler supports customer-goodwill protection where a covenant is limited to customers serviced or solicited by the employee.", "verbatimQuote": "The limitation of the solicitation to such customers was one well calculated to afford to the plaintiff a reasonable protection in his business against deprivation of customers with whom the defendant had very likely established friendly relations, and whom he could approach upon the definite basis of affording them as good or better service than the plaintiff had done in the past.", "date": "1934-12-05", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-roessler-customer-goodwill-protection" }, { "id": "cutsa-trade-secret-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51(d).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_625.htm#sec_35-51", "proposition": "Section 35-51 supports Connecticut's statutory trade-secret definition.", "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 , 31-40j to 31-40p , inclusive, and subsection (c) of section 12-62 , “trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, cost data or customer list that: (1) 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 (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-cutsa-trade-secret-definition" }, { "id": "cutsa-injunctive-relief", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-52", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-52(a).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_625.htm#sec_35-52", "proposition": "Section 35-52 supports injunctive relief for actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined upon application to any court of competent jurisdiction.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-cutsa-injunctive-relief" }, { "id": "cutsa-damages", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-53", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-53(a).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_625.htm#sec_35-53", "proposition": "Section 35-53 supports damages for actual loss and unjust enrichment caused by trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "In addition to or in lieu of injunctive relief, a complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation. A complainant also may recover for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-cutsa-damages" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "How much time and territory are reasonable?", "heading": "What duration and geographic scope are reasonable for a Connecticut non-compete?", "answerText": "There is no single statewide cap for ordinary employees. Connecticut courts balance time, geography, employer protection, employee burden, and public interest as a whole.", "sources": [ { "id": "scott-geographic-area-reasonable", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=A%20restrictive%20covenant%20which%20protects,unreasonable%20with%20respect%20to%20area.", "proposition": "Scott supports evaluating geographic scope in view of the employer's actual business and customer footprint.", "verbatimQuote": "A restrictive covenant which protects the employer in areas in which he does not do business or is unlikely to do business is unreasonable with respect to area.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-geographic-area-reasonable" }, { "id": "scott-five-year-duration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=In%20this%20case%2C%20the%20court,defendant%20to%20acquire%20its%20customers.", "proposition": "Scott supports fact-specific review of duration, including a five-year restriction where the record supported the time period.", "verbatimQuote": "In this case, the court could reasonably and logically conclude that a five-year restriction is reasonable, as the finding reveals that it had taken years of effort for the defendant to acquire its customers.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-five-year-duration" }, { "id": "roessler-one-year-customer-limit", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Roessler v. Burwell", "citation": "Roessler v. Burwell, 119 Conn. 289 (1934).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3323907/roessler-v-burwell/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3323907/roessler-v-burwell/#:~:text=The%20time%20was%20only%20for,of%20customers%20of%20the%20plaintiff.", "proposition": "Roessler supports the reasonableness of a one-year customer-solicitation limit despite broad locality wording when the restraint is customer-specific.", "verbatimQuote": "The time was only for one year, and while the statement of the locality itself was broad, the covenant was definitely restricted to the solicitation of customers of the plaintiff.", "date": "1934-12-05", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-roessler-one-year-customer-limit" }, { "id": "van-dyck-time-geography-intertwined", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola", "citation": "Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Supp. 191 (1993).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334840/van-dyck-printing-co-v-dinicola/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334840/van-dyck-printing-co-v-dinicola/#:~:text=A%20restriction%20covering%20a%20large,reasonable%20for%20a%20longer%20time.", "proposition": "Van Dyck supports treating time and geography as intertwined considerations in Connecticut non-compete reasonableness analysis.", "verbatimQuote": "A restriction covering a large area might be reasonable if in effect for a brief time, while a restriction covering a small area might be reasonable for a longer time.", "date": "1993-08-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-van-dyck-time-geography-intertwined" } ] }, { "slug": "continued-employment-consideration", "label": "Does continued employment count?", "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Connecticut non-compete?", "answerText": "Yes, if the continued employment is connected to the covenant. The current Connecticut rule is that continued at-will employment can supply sufficient consideration for a restrictive covenant signed after employment has begun.", "sources": [ { "id": "dur-a-flex-consideration-reversal", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy", "citation": "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 349 Conn. 513 (2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131708/dur-a-flex-inc-v-dy/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131708/dur-a-flex-inc-v-dy/#:~:text=We%20conclude%2C%20therefore%2C%20that%20the%20trial%20court%20incorrectly,consideration%20for%20a%20noncompete%20agreement.", "proposition": "Dur-A-Flex supports the current Connecticut Supreme Court rule that continued employment is not categorically insufficient consideration for a noncompete agreement, reversing the trial court's contrary determination.", "verbatimQuote": "We conclude, therefore, that the trial court incorrectly determined that continued employment can never be consideration for a noncompete agreement.", "date": "2024-07-02", "pullQuoteLocator": "We conclude, therefore, that the trial court incorrectly|consideration for a noncompete agreement.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-dur-a-flex-consideration-reversal" }, { "id": "schimenti-continued-employment-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Schimenti Construction Co., LLC v. Schimenti", "citation": "Schimenti Constr. Co., LLC v. Schimenti, 217 Conn. App. 224 (2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367427/schimenti-construction-co-llc-v-schimenti/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367427/schimenti-construction-co-llc-v-schimenti/#:~:text=Its%20holding%20that%20consideration%20in,of%20employment%20remains%20binding%20precedent.", "proposition": "Schimenti supports the rule that continued employment for at-will employees can be sufficient consideration for a restrictive covenant signed after employment begins.", "verbatimQuote": "Its holding that consideration in the form of continued employment for at-will employees can be sufficient to make enforceable a restrictive covenant agreed to by the parties at some point after the commencement of employment remains binding precedent.", "date": "2023-01-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-schimenti-continued-employment-rule" }, { "id": "schimenti-connected-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Schimenti Construction Co., LLC v. Schimenti", "citation": "Schimenti Constr. Co., LLC v. Schimenti, 217 Conn. App. 224 (2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367427/schimenti-construction-co-llc-v-schimenti/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367427/schimenti-construction-co-llc-v-schimenti/#:~:text=At%20trial%2C%20as%20the%20plaintiff,consideration%20for%20a%20restrictive%20covenant.", "proposition": "Schimenti supports the connection requirement for continued employment as consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "At trial, as the plaintiff did in Thoma, the defendant may present evidence that there was no con- nection between the nondisclosure agreement and his continued employment; but, if connected, continued employment can be sufficient consideration for a restrictive covenant.", "date": "2023-01-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-schimenti-connected-consideration" }, { "id": "thoma-fact-specific-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc.", "citation": "Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., 153 Conn. App. 50 (2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2733143/thoma-v-oxford-performance-materials-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2733143/thoma-v-oxford-performance-materials-inc/#:~:text=Consequently%2C%20the%20record%20supports%20the,on%20the%20second%20agreement%E2%80%99s%20execution.", "proposition": "Thoma supports the earlier fact-specific contrary result where continued employment was not predicated on the later agreement and the employee lost existing contractual rights.", "verbatimQuote": "Consequently, the record supports the court’s conclusion that the defendant’s financing and the plaintiff’s continued employment were not predicated on the second agreement’s execution.", "date": "2014-09-23", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-thoma-fact-specific-consideration" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will Connecticut courts narrow overbroad covenants?", "heading": "Will a Connecticut court blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Do not count on judicial rewriting. Connecticut authority gives employers no reliable rule that a court will rewrite an overbroad covenant into an enforceable one — internally inconsistent restraint language can be construed against the drafter, and the one statutory severance rule in this area preserves only the non-covenant provisions of a contract when the covenant itself is void.", "sources": [ { "id": "thoma-ambiguous-duration-against-drafter", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc.", "citation": "Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., 153 Conn. App. 50 (2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2733143/thoma-v-oxford-performance-materials-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2733143/thoma-v-oxford-performance-materials-inc/#:~:text=Such%20a%20reasonable%20construction%20is,not%20possible%20in%20this%20case.", "proposition": "Thoma supports the drafting risk that conflicting noncompetition language may not be reasonably reconcilable.", "verbatimQuote": "Such a reasonable construction is not possible in this case.", "date": "2014-09-23", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-thoma-ambiguous-duration-against-drafter" }, { "id": "physician-void-covenant-remainder-survives", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p(c).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_370.htm#sec_20-14p", "proposition": "Section 20-14p supports statutory severability for physician contracts containing a void or unenforceable covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "The remaining provisions of any contract or agreement that includes a covenant not to compete that is rendered void and unenforceable, in whole or in part, under the provisions of this section shall remain in full force and effect, including provisions that require the payment of damages resulting from any injury suffered by reason of termination of such contract or agreement.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-physician-void-covenant-remainder-survives" } ] }, { "slug": "industry-specific-limits", "label": "Which Connecticut workers have special limits?", "heading": "Which Connecticut industries and professions have special non-compete limits?", "answerText": "Connecticut has targeted statutory limits for physicians, physician assistants, APRNs, security guards, broadcast employees, and homemaker-companion or home-health service workers.", "sources": [ { "id": "physician-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p(b)(2).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_370.htm#sec_20-14p", "proposition": "Section 20-14p supports the physician one-year and fifteen-mile statutory cap.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, shall not: (A) Restrict the physician's competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such physician practices; or (B) be enforceable against a physician if (i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-physician-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit" }, { "id": "physician-termination-nonrenewal-limit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p(b)(3).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_370.htm#sec_20-14p", "proposition": "Section 20-14p supports the physician non-renewal and termination-without-cause limits.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after October 1, 2023, shall not be enforceable if (A) the physician who is a party to the employment or other contract or agreement does not agree to a proposed material change to the compensation terms of such contract or agreement prior to or at the time of the extension or renewal of such contract or agreement, and (B) the contract or agreement expires and is not renewed by the employer or the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer for cause.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-physician-termination-nonrenewal-limit" }, { "id": "physician-assistant-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-12k", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-12k(b)(2).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_370.htm#sec_20-12k", "proposition": "Section 20-12k supports the physician assistant one-year and fifteen-mile statutory cap.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after October 1, 2023, shall not: (A) Restrict the physician assistant's competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such physician assistant practices; or (B) be enforceable against a physician assistant if (i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-physician-assistant-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit" }, { "id": "aprn-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-101d", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-101d(b)(2).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_378.htm#sec_20-101d", "proposition": "Section 20-101d supports the APRN one-year and fifteen-mile statutory cap.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after October 1, 2023, shall not: (A) Restrict the advanced practice registered nurse's competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such advanced practice registered nurse practices; or (B) be enforceable against an advanced practice registered nurse if (i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-aprn-one-year-fifteen-mile-limit" }, { "id": "security-guard-trade-secret-exception", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-50a", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-50a(a).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-50a", "proposition": "Section 31-50a supports Connecticut's security-guard non-compete ban unless the employer proves the guard obtained employer trade secrets.", "verbatimQuote": "No employer may require any person employed in the classification 339032 of the standard occupational classification system of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor to enter into an agreement prohibiting such person from engaging in the same or a similar job, at the same location at which the employer employs such person, for another employer or as a self-employed person, unless the employer proves that such person has obtained trade secrets, as defined in subsection (d) of section 35-51 , of the employer.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-security-guard-trade-secret-exception" }, { "id": "broadcast-employee-restriction-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-50b", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-50b(b).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-50b", "proposition": "Section 31-50b supports Connecticut's ban on specified post-employment restrictions for covered broadcast employees.", "verbatimQuote": "No broadcast industry employer employment contract for the services of a broadcast employee may contain a provision requiring that such broadcast employee: (1) Refrain from obtaining employment in a specified geographical area for a specified period of time after termination of employment with that broadcast industry employer; (2) Disclose the terms or conditions of an offer of employment, or the existence of any such offer, from any other broadcast industry employer following the expiration of the term of the employment contract; or (3) Agree to enter into a subsequent employment contract with the broadcast industry employer, or extend or renew the existing employment contract, upon the same terms and conditions offered by a prospective employer.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-broadcast-employee-restriction-ban" }, { "id": "home-health-worker-covenant-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-681", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-681.", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_400o.htm#sec_20-681", "proposition": "Section 20-681 supports the statutory rule that covered homemaker, companion, and home-health service non-competes are void and unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "Any covenant not to compete is against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-home-health-worker-covenant-void" }, { "id": "home-health-client-no-hire-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-683", "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-683(b).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_400o.htm#sec_20-683", "proposition": "Section 20-683 supports Connecticut's ban on no-hire clauses between homemaker-companion agencies and clients.", "verbatimQuote": "Any no-hire clause in a contract between a homemaker-companion agency and a client of such agency is against public policy and shall be void.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-home-health-client-no-hire-ban" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "How are employee non-solicits treated?", "heading": "How does Connecticut treat employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Connecticut has no appellate decision in our review squarely testing an employee anti-raiding covenant, so by analogy it would be judged under the same Scott reasonableness test that governs other restrictive covenants.", "sources": [ { "id": "ct-ens-scott-reason", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20valid,the%20interests%20of%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Scott supports Connecticut's common-law rule that a restraint on a former employee must be partial, reasonable, protective of a fair employer interest, and consistent with the public interest.", "verbatimQuote": "In order to be valid and binding, a covenant which restricts the activities of an employee following the termination of his employment must be partial and restricted in its operation “in respect either to time or place, . . . and must be reasonable — that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-ct-ens-scott-reason" }, { "id": "ct-ens-scott-livelihood", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=The%20interests%20of%20the%20employee,supporting%20himself%20and%20his%20family.", "proposition": "Scott supports the employee-livelihood side of Connecticut's non-compete reasonableness test.", "verbatimQuote": "The interests of the employee himself must also be protected, and a restrictive covenant is unenforceable if by its terms the employee is precluded from pursuing his occupation and thus prevented from supporting himself and his family.", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-ct-ens-scott-livelihood" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does Connecticut toll a non-compete?", "heading": "Does a Connecticut non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?", "answerText": "This is an open Connecticut question. No staged Connecticut statute or appellate decision squarely endorses automatic judicial tolling or enforcement of an extension-on-breach clause after the stated restricted period expires.", "sources": [ { "id": "van-dyck-injunction-moot-after-period", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola", "citation": "Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Supp. 191 (1993).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334840/van-dyck-printing-co-v-dinicola/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3334840/van-dyck-printing-co-v-dinicola/#:~:text=Because%20the%20plaintiffs%20claim%20concerning,injunctive%20relief%20has%20become%20moot.", "proposition": "Van Dyck supports the open-question caution because the request for injunctive relief became moot after the covenant period expired.", "verbatimQuote": "Because the plaintiffs claim concerning the covenant at issue applied to a two year period commencing in April, 1987, the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief has become moot.", "date": "1993-08-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-van-dyck-injunction-moot-after-period" }, { "id": "scott-reasonableness-backdrop-for-tolling", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=In%20determining%20whether%20a%20restrictive,of%20the%20restraint%20it%20imposes.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Scott supports applying Connecticut's reasonableness framework to any restraint that extends the restricted period.", "verbatimQuote": "In determining whether a restrictive covenant of employment is in restraint of trade, “[t]he test of its validity is the reasonableness of the restraint it imposes.”", "date": "1976-06-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-scott-reasonableness-backdrop-for-tolling" } ] }, { "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay", "label": "Did the FTC rule change Connecticut law?", "heading": "Did the FTC's federal non-compete rule change Connecticut non-compete law?", "answerText": "No. The FTC's 2024 nationwide Non-Compete Rule was set aside by a federal district court, so Connecticut non-competes remain governed by Connecticut statutes, Connecticut common law, and any other applicable state or federal claim-specific rules.", "sources": [ { "id": "ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission", "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=The%20Non%2DCompete%20Rule%2C%2016%20C.F.R.,September%204%2C%202024%2C%20or%20thereafter.", "proposition": "Ryan supports the rule that the FTC Non-Compete Rule was set aside and did not take effect.", "verbatimQuote": "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.", "date": "2024-08-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside" }, { "id": "ryan-ftc-unlawful-agency-action", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission", "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20the%20Court%20concludes%20that,Rule%20is%20arbitrary%20and%20capricious.", "proposition": "Ryan supports the federal court's holding that the FTC lacked statutory authority and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.", "verbatimQuote": "In sum, the Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non- Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious.", "date": "2024-08-20", "pullQuoteLocator": "In sum, the Court concludes that|Rule is arbitrary and capricious.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-ryan-ftc-unlawful-agency-action" } ] }, { "slug": "pending-reform", "label": "What reform efforts should employers watch?", "heading": "What recent Connecticut non-compete reform efforts should employers watch?", "answerText": "None is currently law. Connecticut's most recent reform effort, House Bill 5492 (2026), would have voided non-competes for lower-wage workers. It did not pass: the bill reached the House Calendar but got no floor vote before the General Assembly adjourned, the latest in a line of failed attempts.", "sources": [ { "id": "hb-5492-wage-threshold-bill", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "An Act Concerning Limitations on the Use on Noncompete Agreements (H.B. 5492)", "citation": "H.B. 5492, 2026 Gen. Assemb., Feb. Sess. (Conn. 2026) (File No. 393).", "url": "https://www.cga.ct.gov/2026/fc/pdf/2026HB-05492-R000393-FC.pdf", "proposition": "HB 5492, the 2026 reform bill that did not pass, would have voided non-competes for lower-wage employees and independent contractors measured against the minimum fair wage.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete shall be void and unenforceable against a worker if (1) such worker is (A) an employee whose hourly wage is less than two times the minimum fair wage, or (B) an independent contractor whose hourly wage is less than five times the minimum fair wage", "date": "2026-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-hb-5492-wage-threshold-bill" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "How are sale-of-business covenants treated?", "heading": "Are sale-of-business non-competes judged differently in Connecticut?", "answerText": "Yes. Connecticut has no general non-compete statute, and a covenant a seller gives as part of selling a business and its goodwill is enforced under common-law reasonableness — the buyer is entitled to protect the goodwill it paid for.", "sources": [ { "id": "mattis-fair-protection", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mattis v. Lally", "citation": "Mattis v. Lally, 138 Conn. 51, 82 A.2d 155 (1951).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2205253/mattis-v-lally/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2205253/mattis-v-lally/#:~:text=afford%20no%20more%20than%20a,interfering%20with%20the%20public%20interest.", "proposition": "Mattis v. Lally states the Connecticut common-law standard for a sale-of-business covenant: the restraint must afford no more than fair and just protection to the buyer's interest without unduly interfering with the public interest.", "verbatimQuote": "afford no more than a fair and just protection to the interests of the party in whose favor it is to operate, without unduly interfering with the public interest.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut#src-mattis-fair-protection" } ] } ] } }