{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "district-of-columbia",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in the District of Columbia",
      "description": "The District of Columbia bans non-compete provisions for most employees and allows them only for highly compensated employees who earn above an annually adjusted threshold and sign a covenant that meets strict scope, duration, and notice requirements.",
      "state": "District of Columbia",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "payThreshold",
        "bottomLine": "The District bans non-competes for most employees and permits them only for highly compensated employees (above an annually adjusted pay floor) whose covenant meets strict scope, duration, and 14-day notice requirements.",
        "keyLaw": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02 (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020)",
        "exceptions": "Highly compensated employees above the pay threshold ($162,164 in 2026); medical specialists ($270,274 in 2026, 730-day cap); sale-of-business; confidentiality/long-term-incentive carve-outs; broadcast employees cannot be bound; pre-Oct 1, 2022 agreements under common law",
        "banEffectiveDate": "October 1, 2022",
        "courtNarrowing": "rewrite",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Open question — caps run as fixed days from separation",
        "maxLength": "365 days (non-medical highly compensated employee); 730 days (medical specialist)",
        "noticeRequirement": "14 days before execution",
        "incomeThreshold": "$162,164 (2026); medical specialists $270,274",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Excluded from ban",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Outside the statutory ban unless it forecloses work; reasonable at common law",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Not addressed"
      },
      "about": [
        "District of Columbia non-compete agreements",
        "D.C. Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020",
        "D.C. Code 32-581.02 covered employee non-compete prohibition",
        "District of Columbia highly compensated employee non-compete exception",
        "D.C. non-compete 365-day and 730-day duration caps",
        "D.C. non-compete 14-day advance notice requirement",
        "D.C. minimum qualifying annual compensation threshold",
        "District of Columbia medical specialist non-compete",
        "D.C. non-compete workplace policy regulation",
        "D.C. Office of the Attorney General non-compete enforcement"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-district-of-columbia"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in the District of Columbia?",
        "answerText": "Usually no. Since October 1, 2022, a District employer may not require or request that a covered employee — broadly, most employees who do not meet a high compensation threshold — sign or comply with a non-compete provision, and a non-compete provision in a covered employee's agreement entered into on or after that date is void as a matter of law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ban-covered",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.02(a)(1) prohibits an employer from requiring or requesting that a covered employee sign or comply with a non-compete provision, beginning October 1, 2022.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Beginning October 1, 2022, no employer may require or request that a covered employee sign an agreement or comply with a workplace policy that includes a non-compete provision.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-ban-covered"
          },
          {
            "id": "void-rule",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.02(a)(2) makes a non-compete provision in a covered employee's agreement entered into on or after October 1, 2022, void as a matter of law and unenforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A non-compete provision that violates paragraph (1) of this subsection contained in an agreement between a covered employee and an employer that was entered into on or after October 1, 2022, shall be void as a matter of law and unenforceable.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-void-rule"
          },
          {
            "id": "hce-overview",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a) allows a non-compete agreement with a highly compensated employee to be valid and enforceable only if it meets specified content and notice requirements.",
            "verbatimQuote": "For a non-compete agreement between an employer and a highly compensated employee executed on or after October 1, 2022, to be valid and enforceable:",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-overview"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "covered-employee",
        "label": "Who is a covered employee?",
        "heading": "Who counts as a covered employee protected by the District's non-compete ban?",
        "answerText": "Most District-based employees who earn below the high compensation threshold. A covered employee is one who is not a highly compensated employee and who either spends more than 50% of work time for the employer in the District, or is District-based and regularly spends a substantial amount of work time in the District and not more than half elsewhere.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "covered-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(6)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(6) defines a covered employee as one who is not a highly compensated employee and who either spends more than 50% of work time for the employer in the District, or whose District-based employment regularly involves a substantial amount of District work and not more than 50% elsewhere.",
            "verbatimQuote": "an employee who is not a highly compensated employee and: (A) If the employee has commenced work for the employer: (i) Spends more than 50% of his or her work time for the employer working in the District; or (ii) Whose employment for the employer is based in the District and the employee regularly spends a substantial amount of his or her work time for the employer in the District and not more than 50% of his or her work time for that employer in another jurisdiction",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-covered-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "min-qualifying-comp",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(13).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(13) sets the minimum qualifying annual compensation at a base of $150,000 ($250,000 for a medical specialist) and provides for annual inflation adjustment beginning January 1, 2024.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Beginning with the calendar year in which this chapter becomes applicable: (i) $150,000; or (ii) $250,000, if the employee is a medical specialist. (B) For the calendar year beginning January 1, 2024, and each calendar year thereafter, an amount equal to the previous calendar year's minimum qualifying annual compensation, increased in proportion to the annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the previous calendar year adjusted to the nearest whole dollar.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-min-qualifying-comp"
          },
          {
            "id": "threshold-2026",
            "authorityType": "agency-guidance",
            "tier": "official-source-backed",
            "title": "DOES Public Notice: District of Columbia Prohibition on Non-Compete Clauses (2026)",
            "citation": "D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., Office of Wage-Hour, Public Notice: District of Columbia Prohibition on Non-Compete Clauses (Jan. 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/publication/attachments/2026%20Ban%20on%20Non-Compete%20Clauses_0.pdf",
            "proposition": "The Department of Employment Services 2026 public notice states the current compensation thresholds below which the non-compete ban applies: $162,164 for most employees and $270,274 for medical specialists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As of January 1, 2026, the restriction on non-compete clauses applies to employees earning less than $162,164 and to medical specialists earning less than $270,274.",
            "date": "2026-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-threshold-2026"
          },
          {
            "id": "cba-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04a",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04a.",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04a",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04a provides that nothing in the chapter supersedes the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as superseding the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-cba-carveout"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "highly-compensated-exception",
        "label": "When is a non-compete allowed?",
        "heading": "When can a District of Columbia employer use a non-compete agreement?",
        "answerText": "Only with a highly compensated employee, and only if the covenant meets every statutory requirement. A non-compete with a highly compensated employee is valid only if the agreement specifies the functional scope of the restriction and its geographic limits, caps the post-employment term, and is delivered in writing at least 14 days in advance.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hce-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(10).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(10) defines a highly compensated employee — excluding broadcast employees — as one reasonably expected to earn, or who earned in the preceding 12-month period, at or above the minimum qualifying annual compensation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "other than a broadcast employee, an employee: (A) Who is reasonably expected to earn from the employer in a consecutive 12-month period compensation greater than or equal to the minimum qualifying annual compensation; or (B) Whose compensation earned from the employer in the consecutive 12-month period preceding the date on which the proposed term of non-competition is to begin is greater than or equal to the minimum qualifying annual compensation.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "broadcast-exclusion",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(2) defines a broadcast employee — an on- or off-air creator for a broadcaster — the category that § 32-581.01(10) excludes from highly compensated employee status.",
            "verbatimQuote": "\"Broadcast employee\" means an on- or off-air creator (such as an anchor, disc jockey, editor, producer, program host, reporter, or writer) of a legal entity that owns or operates one or more of the following: (A) A television station or network",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-broadcast-exclusion"
          },
          {
            "id": "hce-requirements",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(1) requires a valid highly compensated employee non-compete to specify the functional scope of the restriction and its geographical limitations.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreement must specify: (A) The functional scope of the competitive restriction, including what services, roles, industry, or competing entities the employee is restricted from performing work in or on behalf of; (B) The geographical limitations of the work restriction",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-requirements"
          },
          {
            "id": "hce-duration",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(i).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(i) caps the post-employment non-competition term for a non-medical highly compensated employee at 365 calendar days from separation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the employee is not a medical specialist, a term of non-competition that does not exceed 365 calendar days from the date the employee separates from employment with the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-duration"
          },
          {
            "id": "hce-notice-timing",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(2) requires the employer to provide the non-compete provision in writing at least 14 days before employment commences, or at least 14 days before a current employee must execute it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employer shall provide the non-compete provision to the employee in writing: (A) At least 14 days before the individual commences employment for the employer; or (B) If the employer already employs the highly compensated employee, at least 14 days before the employee must execute the agreement.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-notice-timing"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "medical-specialists",
        "label": "What rule applies to physicians?",
        "heading": "How does the District treat non-competes for physicians and medical specialists?",
        "answerText": "Medical specialists can be bound, but only above a higher pay floor and for a longer maximum term. A medical specialist — a licensed physician who has completed a residency and earns at least $250,000 (as annually adjusted) — may be subject to a non-compete capped at 730 calendar days, double the 365-day cap for other employees.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "medical-specialist-def",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(12).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(12) defines a medical specialist as a highly compensated employee who holds a license to practice medicine, is a physician, has completed a residency, and earns at least $250,000.",
            "verbatimQuote": "\"Medical specialist\" means a highly compensated employee who is engaged primarily in the delivery of medical services and who: (A) Holds a license to practice medicine; (B) Is a physician ; (C) Has completed a medical residency; and (D) Receives total compensation in the amount equal to or greater than $ 250,000.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-medical-specialist-def"
          },
          {
            "id": "medical-duration",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(ii).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(ii) caps the post-employment non-competition term for a medical specialist at 730 calendar days from separation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the employee is a medical specialist, a term of non-competition that does not exceed 730 calendar days from the date the employee separates from employment with the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-medical-duration"
          },
          {
            "id": "medical-requirements",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(1) requires every highly compensated employee non-compete, including a medical specialist's, to specify the functional scope and geographical limitations of the restriction.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreement must specify: (A) The functional scope of the competitive restriction, including what services, roles, industry, or competing entities the employee is restricted from performing work in or on behalf of; (B) The geographical limitations of the work restriction",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-medical-requirements"
          },
          {
            "id": "medical-threshold-2026",
            "authorityType": "agency-guidance",
            "tier": "official-source-backed",
            "title": "DOES Public Notice: District of Columbia Prohibition on Non-Compete Clauses (2026)",
            "citation": "D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., Public Notice: District of Columbia Prohibition on Non-Compete Clauses (Jan. 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/publication/attachments/2026%20Ban%20on%20Non-Compete%20Clauses_0.pdf",
            "proposition": "The Department of Employment Services 2026 public notice sets the medical specialist compensation threshold at $270,274.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As of January 1, 2026, the restriction on non-compete clauses applies to employees earning less than $162,164 and to medical specialists earning less than $270,274.",
            "date": "2026-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-medical-threshold-2026"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "notice-disclosures",
        "label": "What notice must employers give?",
        "heading": "What notices and disclosures must a District employer provide?",
        "answerText": "A specific statutory notice for proposed non-competes, plus written disclosure of any workplace-policy carve-outs. Whenever an employer proposes a non-compete to a highly compensated employee, it must provide a prescribed statutory notice, and an employer that relies on the policy exceptions to the non-compete definition must give employees a written copy of those provisions on a set timeline.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "statutory-notice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a(b).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03a",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03a(b) requires an employer to provide a prescribed statutory notice to a highly compensated employee whenever a non-compete provision is proposed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A highly compensated employee's employer shall provide the following notice to the employee whenever a non-compete provision is proposed to the employee:",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-statutory-notice"
          },
          {
            "id": "policy-disclosure",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a(a).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03a",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03a(a) requires an employer relying on a policy exception to the non-compete definition to provide a written copy within 30 days of acceptance, within 30 days after October 1, 2022, and whenever the policy changes.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer with a workplace policy that includes one or more of the exceptions to the definition of non-compete provision, as detailed in § 32-581.01(15) , shall provide a written copy of the provisions to an employee: (1) Within 30 days after the employee's acceptance of employment with the employer; (2) Within 30 days after October 1, 2022; and (3) Any time such policy changes.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-policy-disclosure"
          },
          {
            "id": "disclosure-relief",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(4).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(d)(4) makes an employer that violates the disclosure rules of § 32-581.03a liable for $250 in monetary relief per violation to each affected employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that violates § 32-581.03a shall be liable for each violation to each employee subjected to the violation for monetary relief in an amount of $250.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-disclosure-relief"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "workplace-policies",
        "label": "Does the ban reach workplace policies?",
        "heading": "Does the District's ban reach workplace policies, not just signed contracts?",
        "answerText": "Yes. The ban applies to a non-compete provision in either a written agreement or a workplace policy, and a workplace policy includes unwritten rules applied as a matter of practice.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "noncompete-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(15) defines a non-compete provision as a provision in a written agreement or a workplace policy that prohibits an employee from performing work for another for pay or operating the employee's own business.",
            "verbatimQuote": "\"Non-compete provision\" means a provision in a written agreement or a workplace policy that prohibits an employee from performing work for another for pay or from operating the employee's own business.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-noncompete-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "workplace-policy-def",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(19).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(19) defines a workplace policy to include rules and restrictions whether written or applied as a matter of practice.",
            "verbatimQuote": "\"Workplace policy\" means the rules and restrictions, whether written or as a matter of practice, implemented by an employer to govern the conduct of the employer's employees.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-workplace-policy-def"
          },
          {
            "id": "outside-work-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(B)(ii).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(15)(B)(ii) excludes from the non-compete definition a restriction on accepting outside work during employment where the employer reasonably believes it will disclose confidential information, conflict with conflict-of-interest rules, create a conflict of commitment at a higher education institution, or impair legal compliance.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Accepting money or a thing of value for performing work for a person other than the employer, during the employee's employment with the employer, because the employer reasonably believes the employee's acceptance of money or a thing of value under such circumstances will: (I) Result in the employee's disclosure or use of confidential employer information or proprietary employer information; (II) Conflict with the employer's, industry's, or profession's established rules regarding conflicts of interest; (III) Constitute a conflict of commitment if the employee is employed by a higher education institution; or (IV) Impair the employer's ability to comply with District or federal laws or regulations; a contract; or a grant agreement",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-outside-work-carveout"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "confidentiality-trade-secrets",
        "label": "Are confidentiality clauses still allowed?",
        "heading": "Are confidentiality and trade-secret protections still allowed in the District?",
        "answerText": "Yes. A provision protecting the employer's confidential or proprietary information is expressly excluded from the non-compete definition, and the District's Uniform Trade Secrets Act gives an independent remedy.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "confidentiality-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(B)(i).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(15)(B)(i) excludes from the non-compete definition a provision restricting an employee from disclosing, using, selling, or accessing the employer's confidential or proprietary information.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Disclosing, using, selling, or accessing the employer's confidential employer information or proprietary employer information",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-confidentiality-carveout"
          },
          {
            "id": "lti-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(C).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(15)(C) excludes from the non-compete definition an otherwise lawful provision that provides a long-term incentive.",
            "verbatimQuote": "That provides a long-term incentive.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-lti-carveout"
          },
          {
            "id": "utsa-injunction",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 36-402",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 36-402(a).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/36-402",
            "proposition": "Section 36-402(a) of the District's Uniform Trade Secrets Act authorizes a court to enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.",
            "date": "1990-03-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-utsa-injunction"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "customer-non-solicitation",
        "label": "How are customer non-solicits treated?",
        "heading": "How does the District of Columbia treat customer non-solicitation covenants?",
        "answerText": "An ordinary customer non-solicit falls outside the District's statutory non-compete ban because it does not bar the employee from working for another for pay or running their own business, so it is judged under common-law reasonableness.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "dc-cust-statute-outside-ban",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "The statutory ban reaches only provisions barring an employee from working for another for pay or running their own business, so a customer non-solicit (which does neither) is outside the ban.",
            "verbatimQuote": "“Non-compete provision” means a provision in a written agreement or a workplace policy that prohibits an employee from performing work for another for pay or from operating the employee's own business.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-cust-statute-outside-ban"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-cust-ellis-partial",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc., 565 A.2d 615, 618 (D.C. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=we%20join%20those%20jurisdictions%20which,whole%20or%20not%20at%20all.",
            "proposition": "Under District of Columbia common law a restraint of trade need not be enforceable in whole or not at all; a court may partially enforce the reasonable portion.",
            "verbatimQuote": "we join those jurisdictions which have rejected the view that covenants not to compete must be enforceable in whole or not at all.",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-cust-ellis-partial"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "sale-of-business",
        "label": "What about sale-of-business covenants?",
        "heading": "Are sale-of-business non-competes enforceable in the District of Columbia?",
        "answerText": "They are not banned by the statute, but their enforceability still turns on common-law reasonableness. A covenant in which the seller of a business agrees not to compete with the buyer is excluded from the non-compete definition, so it is not void under the ban; it remains subject to the District's common-law rule of reason.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "sale-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.01(15)(A) excludes from the non-compete definition a seller's covenant not to compete contained within or executed contemporaneously with the sale of a business.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Contained within or executed contemporaneously with an agreement between the seller of a business and one or more buyers of that business wherein the seller agrees not to compete with the buyer's business",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-sale-carveout"
          },
          {
            "id": "ellis-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=A%20promise%20is%20unenforceable%20on,unreasonably%20in%20restraint%20of%20trade.",
            "proposition": "Ellis applies the Restatement (Second) of Contracts reasonableness framework to restraints of trade under District of Columbia law, under which a promise unreasonably in restraint of trade is unenforceable on public-policy grounds.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A promise is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if it is unreasonably in restraint of trade.",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-ellis-reasonableness"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "older-agreements-common-law",
        "label": "Do pre-2022 agreements still bind?",
        "heading": "What law applies to non-competes signed before October 1, 2022?",
        "answerText": "Common-law reasonableness, not the statutory ban. The voiding rule in § 32-581.02 reaches agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2022, so an earlier covenant — and any covenant outside the statute's scope — is governed by the District's common-law rule of reason.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "void-rule-retroactivity",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.02(a)(2) voids only non-compete provisions in covered-employee agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2022, leaving earlier agreements to common law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A non-compete provision that violates paragraph (1) of this subsection contained in an agreement between a covered employee and an employer that was entered into on or after October 1, 2022, shall be void as a matter of law and unenforceable.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-void-rule-retroactivity"
          },
          {
            "id": "ellis-partial",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=we%20join%20those%20jurisdictions%20which,whole%20or%20not%20at%20all.",
            "proposition": "Ellis holds that District of Columbia courts may partially enforce a covenant not to compete to the extent its terms are reasonable, rejecting an all-or-nothing rule.",
            "verbatimQuote": "we join those jurisdictions which have rejected the view that covenants not to compete must be enforceable in whole or not at all.",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-ellis-partial"
          },
          {
            "id": "deutsch-factors",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Deutsch v. Barsky",
            "citation": "Deutsch v. Barsky, 795 A.2d 669 (D.C. 2002).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1439721/deutsch-v-barsky/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1439721/deutsch-v-barsky/#:~:text=we%20reverse%20that%20part%20of,and%20enforceability%20of%20the%20covenant",
            "proposition": "Deutsch reversed summary judgment on a covenant's validity where the trial court did not properly apply the reasonableness factors set out in Ellis.",
            "verbatimQuote": "we reverse that part of the trial court’s summary judgment decision relating to the validity and enforceability of the covenant",
            "date": "2002-04-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-deutsch-factors"
          },
          {
            "id": "cumulative-rule",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04b",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04b.",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04b",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04b provides that the chapter's rights and remedies are in addition to and cumulative of the common law, preserving common-law doctrine for covenants outside the statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The rights, remedies, and prohibitions accorded by the provisions of this chapter are in addition to and cumulative of any right, remedy, or prohibition accorded by the common law, federal law, or any District statute, and nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to deny, abrogate, or impair any such common law or statutory right, remedy, or prohibition.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-cumulative-rule"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will courts narrow an overbroad covenant?",
        "heading": "Will a District of Columbia court rewrite or narrow an overbroad covenant?",
        "answerText": "It can reform a covenant, but only by narrowing — never by broadening. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has formally adopted the doctrine of equitable reformation to modify an overbroad restrictive covenant, but a court exceeds that doctrine if it expands the restriction beyond the contract's own terms.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "steiner-reformation",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad)",
            "citation": "Steiner v. Am. Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), 177 A.3d 1246 (D.C. 2018).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4464037/yehuda-steiner-v-american-friends-of-lubavitch-chaabad/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4464037/yehuda-steiner-v-american-friends-of-lubavitch-chaabad/#:~:text=We%20also%20formally%20adopt%20the,contained%20in%20the%20noncompete%20clause.",
            "proposition": "Steiner formally adopts equitable reformation to modify an overbroad covenant but holds that a court exceeds the doctrine by using broader language than the contract and thereby expanding the restriction.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We also formally adopt the doctrine of equitable reformation to modify contract provisions, but hold that the trial court's equitable revision of the noncompete clause in this case exceeded the bounds of that doctrine by describing the activities the Steiners were precluded from engaging in using broader language than the terms of the employment contract itself and thus effectively expanding the scope of the restrictions contained in the noncompete clause.",
            "date": "2018-02-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-steiner-reformation"
          },
          {
            "id": "hce-requirements-narrowing",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a) conditions the validity of a highly compensated employee non-compete on satisfying the listed statutory content and notice requirements.",
            "verbatimQuote": "For a non-compete agreement between an employer and a highly compensated employee executed on or after October 1, 2022, to be valid and enforceable:",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-hce-requirements-narrowing"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "penalties-enforcement",
        "label": "What are the penalties?",
        "heading": "What are the penalties for using a banned non-compete in the District?",
        "answerText": "Administrative penalties plus per-employee monetary relief, and active enforcement by the Attorney General. An employer that violates the ban faces administrative penalties and owes statutory relief to each affected employee — and the District's Office of the Attorney General has pursued and settled non-compete cases.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "relief-subjecting",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(1)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(d)(1)(A) makes an employer that subjects an employee to a banned non-compete liable for $500 to $1,000 per affected employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that violates § 32-581.02(a)(1) shall be liable for each violation to each employee subjected to the violation for monetary relief in an amount not less than $500 and not greater than $1,000.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-relief-subjecting"
          },
          {
            "id": "relief-amounts",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(2)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(d)(2)(A) makes an employer that attempts to enforce a void or unenforceable non-compete liable for at least $1,500 to each affected employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that attempts to enforce a non-compete provision that is unenforceable or void as provided in §§ 32-581.02(a)(2) and 32-581.03(a) shall be liable to each employee against whom the employer attempted to enforce the invalid non-compete provision for relief in an amount not less than $1,500.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-relief-amounts"
          },
          {
            "id": "relief-subsequent",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(1)(B).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(d)(1)(B) raises the relief for a subsequent violation to at least $3,000 per affected employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "For any subsequent violation of § 32-581.02(a)(1) , an employer that has been found liable pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be liable for relief in an amount not less than $3,000 to each affected employee.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-relief-subsequent"
          },
          {
            "id": "enforcement-authority",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(a)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(a)(1) charges both the Mayor and the Attorney General with administering and enforcing the chapter.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Mayor and Attorney General shall administer and enforce this chapter consistent with their respective powers and rights under § 32-1306(a) , (a-1) , (b) , and (c) .",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-enforcement-authority"
          },
          {
            "id": "private-enforcement",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(c)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(c)(1) lets a person aggrieved by a violation pursue relief through an administrative complaint or a civil action.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may pursue relief by filing:",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-private-enforcement"
          },
          {
            "id": "retaliation-ban",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(b).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.02(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a covered employee for refusing, failing to comply with, or complaining about a banned non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No employer may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against a covered employee for:",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-retaliation-ban"
          },
          {
            "id": "retaliation-relief",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(3)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(d)(3)(A) makes an employer that retaliates liable for $1,000 to $2,500 per instance to each affected employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that retaliates against an employee in violation of § 32-581.02(b) or § 32-581.03(b) shall be liable for each instance of retaliation to each employee subject to the retaliation in an amount not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,500.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-retaliation-relief"
          },
          {
            "id": "admin-penalty",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(b)(1).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04(b)(1) authorizes the Mayor to assess an administrative penalty of $350 to $1,000 for each violation, with a $1,000 floor for retaliation violations.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Mayor may assess an administrative penalty of no less than $350 and no more than $1,000 for each violation of this chapter",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-admin-penalty"
          },
          {
            "id": "oag-enforcement",
            "authorityType": "agency-guidance",
            "tier": "official-source-backed",
            "title": "OAG Press Release on Non-Compete Settlements (Nov. 17, 2023)",
            "citation": "Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Press Release (Nov. 17, 2023).",
            "url": "https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-announces-three-district",
            "proposition": "The Office of the Attorney General announced settlements with three District employers and described the ban as making it illegal to impose non-compete agreements on most District workers earning less than $150,000 a year.",
            "verbatimQuote": "On October 1, 2022, a new DC law went into effect that makes it illegal for employers to impose non-compete agreements on most DC workers who earn less than $150,000 per year.",
            "date": "2023-11-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-oag-enforcement"
          },
          {
            "id": "oag-nopoach",
            "authorityType": "agency-guidance",
            "tier": "official-source-backed",
            "title": "OAG Press Release on Non-Compete Settlements (Nov. 17, 2023)",
            "citation": "Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Press Release (Nov. 17, 2023).",
            "url": "https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-announces-three-district",
            "proposition": "The Office of the Attorney General treated a franchise no-poach clause as violating both the District's Antitrust Act and the ban on non-compete agreements.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Through its investigation, OAG uncovered evidence that Hissho violated the District’s Antitrust Act and the District’s ban on non-compete agreements by including a “no-poach” clause in its contracts with franchisees, which prevented employees from leaving one fast food franchise to work for another franchise in the same chain.",
            "date": "2023-11-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-oag-nopoach"
          },
          {
            "id": "antitrust",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 28-4502",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 28-4502.",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-4502",
            "proposition": "Section 28-4502 of the District's Antitrust Act declares illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade within the District — the basis for treating a no-poach clause as an antitrust violation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce all or any part of which is within the District of Columbia is declared to be illegal.",
            "date": "1981-03-10",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-antitrust"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does a non-compete toll during breach?",
        "heading": "Does a District of Columbia non-compete toll or extend during a breach or litigation?",
        "answerText": "This is an open question, and the statute's structure cuts against automatic extension. The District's non-compete statute sets no tolling rule, and its caps run as a fixed number of calendar days measured from separation — language that sits uneasily with extending a highly compensated employee's restricted period during a breach or while litigation is pending.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tolling-duration-cap",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(i).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(i) caps the non-medical highly compensated employee's term of non-competition at 365 calendar days measured from the date of separation, constraining any extension on breach.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the employee is not a medical specialist, a term of non-competition that does not exceed 365 calendar days from the date the employee separates from employment with the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-tolling-duration-cap"
          },
          {
            "id": "tolling-cumulative",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04b",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04b.",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04b",
            "proposition": "Section 32-581.04b preserves common-law rights and remedies as cumulative, so any tolling question for a covenant outside the statute is governed by the District's common-law reasonableness rule, which has not endorsed extension on breach.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The rights, remedies, and prohibitions accorded by the provisions of this chapter are in addition to and cumulative of any right, remedy, or prohibition accorded by the common law, federal law, or any District statute",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia#src-tolling-cumulative"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}