{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "kansas", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Kansas", "description": "A question-by-question summary of Kansas non-compete law, including the Weber reasonableness test, judicial reformation of overbroad covenants, tolling-during-breach clauses, the SB 241 amendments to K.S.A. 50-163, non-solicitation safe harbors, healthcare covenants, and trade-secret alternatives.", "state": "Kansas", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Kansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, reasonable under the four-factor Weber test, and not adverse to the public welfare, and is one of the more employer-friendly states; courts will narrow an overbroad restraint.", "keyLaw": "common law (Weber v. Tillman, 913 P.2d 84 (Kan. 1996))", "exceptions": "Non-competes excluded from K.S.A. 50-163 Restraint of Trade Act; non-solicit & owner safe harbors; no physician/healthcare ban", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "No — Doan declined an indefinite tolling-during-breach clause", "maxLength": "No statutory limit for non-competes", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Owner/seller safe harbor; sale non-competes still common-law", "customerNonSolicit": "Statutory safe harbor for defined covenants", "employeeNonSolicit": "Statutory safe harbor for owner no-recruit covenants" }, "about": [ "Kansas non-compete agreements", "K.S.A. 50-163 Kansas Restraint of Trade Act", "Weber v. Tillman reasonableness test", "Kansas non-solicitation covenants", "Kansas physician and healthcare non-competes", "Kansas judicial reformation of restrictive covenants", "Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-kansas" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Kansas?", "answerText": "Yes, when they are reasonable. Kansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary to a lawful contract, reasonable under the circumstances, and not adverse to the public welfare.", "sources": [ { "id": "weber-governing-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Weber v. Tillman", "citation": "Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/#:~:text=A%20noncompetition%20covenant%20ancillary%20to,adverse%20to%20the%20public%20welfare.", "proposition": "Weber v. Tillman supports the governing Kansas rule that an employee non-compete ancillary to an employment contract is enforceable if reasonable and not adverse to the public welfare.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare.", "date": "1996-03-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-weber-governing-standard" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness-test", "label": "What reasonableness test applies?", "heading": "What reasonableness test do Kansas courts apply to non-competes?", "answerText": "A four-factor test. Kansas courts ask whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest, whether it imposes an undue burden on the employee, whether it injures the public welfare, and whether its time and territory limits are reasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "q2-weber-four-factor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Weber v. Tillman", "citation": "Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/#:~:text=The%20analysis%20of%20whether%20the,contained%20in%20the%20covenant%20reasonable%3F", "proposition": "Weber v. Tillman supports the four-factor reasonableness test Kansas courts apply to non-compete covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "The analysis of whether the noncompetition clause is reasonable evaluates these factors: (1) Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer? (2) Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee? (3) Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare? (4) Are the time and territorial limitations contained in the covenant reasonable?", "date": "1996-03-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q2-weber-four-factor" }, { "id": "doan-de-novo", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger", "citation": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/#:~:text=Kansas%20appellate%20courts%20exercise%20unlimited,contract%20is%20enforceable%20as%20written.", "proposition": "Doan supports that Kansas appellate courts review the enforceability of a non-compete without deference to the trial court.", "verbatimQuote": "Kansas appellate courts exercise unlimited review when determining whether a noncompete clause in an employment contract is enforceable as written.", "date": "2022-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-doan-de-novo" }, { "id": "caring-hearts-public-welfare", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Hobley", "citation": "Caring Hearts Personal Home Servs., Inc. v. Hobley, 35 Kan. App. 2d 345, 130 P.3d 1215 (2006).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7213041/caring-hearts-personal-home-services-inc-v-hobley/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7213041/caring-hearts-personal-home-services-inc-v-hobley/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20evidence%20that%20enforcement,injurious%20to%20the%20public%20welfare.", "proposition": "Caring Hearts supports applying the Weber public-welfare factor and finding no public-welfare injury on the facts of an enforceable covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "There is no evidence that enforcement of the noncompete agreement is injurious to the public welfare.", "date": "2006-03-24", "pullQuoteLocator": "There is no evidence that enforcement|injurious to the public welfare.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-caring-hearts-public-welfare" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will courts narrow an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will a Kansas court narrow an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it?", "answerText": "Usually it narrows. Kansas courts have long used their equitable power to reduce an overbroad restraint and enforce it as reduced, rather than striking the whole covenant.", "sources": [ { "id": "eastern-equitable-reduction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn", "citation": "Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn, 222 Kan. 666, 567 P.2d 1371 (1977).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1195583/eastern-distributing-co-inc-v-flynn/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1195583/eastern-distributing-co-inc-v-flynn/#:~:text=We%20think%20the%20trial%20court,necessary%20to%20protect%20plaintiff's%20interest.", "proposition": "Eastern Distributing supports the common-law equitable power of Kansas courts to reduce an overbroad territorial restraint and enforce the covenant as reduced.", "verbatimQuote": "We think the trial court in the exercise of its equitable powers fairly and reasonably reduced the area restriction to only that which was necessary to protect plaintiff's interest.", "date": "1977-07-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-eastern-equitable-reduction" }, { "id": "doan-no-rewrite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger", "citation": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/#:~:text=Because%20the%20two%2Dyear%20term%20was,that%20term%20of%20the%20agreement.", "proposition": "Doan supports the limit that a Kansas court may reform an unreasonable term but may not rewrite a term that is already reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "Because the two-year term was reasonable, the court did not have the discretion to rewrite that term of the agreement.", "date": "2022-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-doan-no-rewrite" }, { "id": "q3-ksa-50-163-reform", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(b).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(b) supports the statute's mandatory reformation command for an overbroad covenant that is not conclusively presumed enforceable under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.", "verbatimQuote": "If a covenant that is not presumed to be enforceable pursuant to subsection (c) is determined to be overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business interest of the business entity seeking enforcement of the covenant, the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q3-ksa-50-163-reform" }, { "id": "q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6) supports that the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, including its statutory presumptions and reformation command, does not apply to covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "any franchise agreements or covenants not to compete", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does a tolling clause extend the period?", "heading": "Does a tolling or extension-during-breach clause extend a Kansas non-compete?", "answerText": "Probably not as written. The only Kansas appellate decision on point refused to enforce a clause that tolled the restricted period during breach and during enforcement litigation, treating the resulting open-ended restraint as unreasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "doan-tolling-declined", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger", "citation": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/#:~:text=The%20district%20court%20did%20not,the%20noncompete%20clause's%20tolling%20provision.", "proposition": "Doan supports that a Kansas court may decline to enforce a non-compete tolling provision that extends the restricted period during breach and litigation.", "verbatimQuote": "The district court did not err, however, when it declined to enforce the noncompete clause's tolling provision.", "date": "2022-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-doan-tolling-declined" }, { "id": "doan-tolling-indefinite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger", "citation": "Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9367497/doan-family-corp-v-arnberger/#:~:text=While%20a%20two%2Dyear%20period%20is,a%20reasonable%20restraint%20on%20Arnberger.", "proposition": "Doan supports treating an indefinite extension of an otherwise reasonable restricted period as an unreasonable restraint.", "verbatimQuote": "While a two-year period is a reasonable restriction under these facts, an indefinite extension of that period is not a reasonable restraint on Arnberger.", "date": "2022-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-doan-tolling-indefinite" } ] }, { "slug": "sb-241-changes", "label": "How did SB 241 change Kansas law?", "heading": "How did the 2025 SB 241 amendments change Kansas restrictive-covenant law?", "answerText": "They created statutory safe harbors for non-solicitation and owner covenants, not for traditional non-competes. K.S.A. 50-163, as amended in 2025, conclusively presumes certain solicitation covenants enforceable, but it also excludes covenants not to compete from the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.", "sources": [ { "id": "q5-ksa-50-163-reasonable", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(1).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(1) supports the statutory baseline that a reasonable restraint of trade is one reasonable under all the facts and circumstances and not contrary to public welfare.", "verbatimQuote": "An arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, understanding or combination is a reasonable restraint of trade or commerce if such restraint is reasonable in view of all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and does not contravene public welfare.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q5-ksa-50-163-reasonable" }, { "id": "q5-ksa-50-163-reform", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(b).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(b) supports the statute's mandatory reformation of an overbroad covenant that is governed by, but not conclusively presumed enforceable under, the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.", "verbatimQuote": "If a covenant that is not presumed to be enforceable pursuant to subsection (c) is determined to be overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business interest of the business entity seeking enforcement of the covenant, the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q5-ksa-50-163-reform" }, { "id": "q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6) supports that the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act does not apply to covenants not to compete or franchise agreements.", "verbatimQuote": "any franchise agreements or covenants not to compete", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q5-ksa-50-163-exclusion" } ] }, { "slug": "non-solicitation", "label": "Are non-solicits presumed enforceable?", "heading": "Are Kansas non-solicitation covenants conclusively presumed enforceable?", "answerText": "Yes, inside the statutory limits. A written employee customer non-solicit is conclusively presumed enforceable if it is limited to material contact customers and lasts no more than two years.", "sources": [ { "id": "ksa-50-163-customer-nonsolicit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(5).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(5) supports the conclusive presumption of enforceability for an employee customer non-solicit limited to material contact customers and capped at two years.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant in writing in which an employee agrees not to solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the employer shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant is between an employer and an employee and does not continue for more than two years following the end of the employee's employment with the employer.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-50-163-customer-nonsolicit" }, { "id": "ksa-50-163-material-contact", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(g)(2).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(g)(2) supports the statutory definition of material contact customer used to scope Kansas non-solicitation covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "\"Material contact customer\" means any customer or prospective customer that is solicited, produced or serviced, directly or indirectly, by the employee or owner at issue or any customer or prospective customer about whom the employee or owner, directly or indirectly, had confidential business or proprietary information or trade secrets in the course of the employee's or owner's relationship with the customer.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-50-163-material-contact" }, { "id": "ksa-50-163-owner-nonsolicit", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3) supports the conclusive presumption for an owner customer non-solicit limited to material contact customers and capped at four years.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, induce, persuade, encourage, service, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-50-163-owner-nonsolicit" }, { "id": "ksa-50-163-defenses", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(7).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(7) supports that even where a non-solicitation or owner covenant is conclusively presumed enforceable, the employee or owner may still assert any available legal or equitable defense.", "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding the presumption of enforceability provided in subsections (c)(2) through (c)(5), an employee or owner shall be permitted to assert any applicable defense available at law or in equity for the court's consideration in a dispute regarding a written covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-50-163-defenses" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "What consideration supports a Kansas non-compete?", "answerText": "Continued employment is enough. Kansas does not treat continued employment of an existing at-will employee as inadequate consideration for a covenant signed after hire.", "sources": [ { "id": "puritan-bennett-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Richter", "citation": "Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Richter, 8 Kan. App. 2d 311, 657 P.2d 589 (1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1159191/puritan-bennett-corp-v-richter/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1159191/puritan-bennett-corp-v-richter/#:~:text=After%20reviewing%20these%20authorities%2C%20we,a%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete.", "proposition": "Puritan-Bennett supports that continued employment of an at-will employee can be sufficient consideration for a Kansas non-compete signed after hire.", "verbatimQuote": "After reviewing these authorities, we hold that continued employment should not as a matter of law be disregarded as consideration sufficient to uphold a covenant not to compete.", "date": "1983-01-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-puritan-bennett-consideration" } ] }, { "slug": "healthcare", "label": "What about physician non-competes?", "heading": "Do special rules apply to Kansas physician and healthcare non-competes?", "answerText": "No special ban. Kansas evaluates physician covenants under the ordinary reasonableness test, and it recognizes referral sources as a legitimate interest a medical practice may protect.", "sources": [ { "id": "idbeis-referral-sources", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A.", "citation": "Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755, 112 P.3d 81 (2005).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7970031/idbeis-v-wichita-surgical-specialists-pa/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7970031/idbeis-v-wichita-surgical-specialists-pa/#:~:text=In%20Kansas%2C%20however%2C%20the%20law,context%20of%20a%20medical%20practice.", "proposition": "Idbeis supports that Kansas recognizes referral sources as a legitimate interest a medical practice may protect through a restrictive covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "In Kansas, however, the law is clear that referral sources are a legitimate interest which can be protected by a restrictive covenant even in the context of a medical practice.", "date": "2005-06-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-idbeis-referral-sources" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets", "label": "Are trade-secret and NDA tools available?", "heading": "Are trade-secret and confidentiality protections still available in Kansas?", "answerText": "Yes. The Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act protects trade secrets, and a contractual confidentiality covenant remains available for information that is not a trade secret.", "sources": [ { "id": "ksa-60-3320-trade-secret", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 60-3320", "citation": "K.S.A. 60-3320(4).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_033_0020.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 60-3320 supports the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act definition of a trade secret as information with independent economic value that is the subject of reasonable secrecy efforts.", "verbatimQuote": "\"Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) 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 (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-60-3320-trade-secret" }, { "id": "wolfe-kutsa-exclusive", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth", "citation": "Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth, 293 Kan. 375, 266 P.3d 516 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7970813/wolfe-electric-inc-v-duckworth/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7970813/wolfe-electric-inc-v-duckworth/#:~:text=This%20is%20error%20because%20tort,KUTSA%20is%20the%20exclusive%20remedy.", "proposition": "Wolfe Electric supports that the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act is the exclusive remedy for trade-secret misappropriation and preempts tort claims seeking that recovery.", "verbatimQuote": "This is error because tort causes of action cannot include a claim to recover for trade secrets; KUTSA is the exclusive remedy.", "date": "2011-10-21", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-wolfe-kutsa-exclusive" }, { "id": "ksa-60-3326-contract", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 60-3326", "citation": "K.S.A. 60-3326(b)(1).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_033_0026.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 60-3326 supports that the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not displace contractual remedies, leaving a confidentiality covenant available for non-trade-secret information.", "verbatimQuote": "This act does not affect: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-ksa-60-3326-contract" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "How are sale-of-business covenants treated?", "heading": "How are Kansas sale-of-business and owner covenants treated?", "answerText": "More favorably than employee covenants. Owner and seller non-solicitation covenants get a four-year statutory safe harbor, covering both no-recruit and customer non-solicitation terms, while a sale-related non-compete is still tested under the common-law reasonableness standard.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-ksa-50-163-owner", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(2).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(2) supports the four-year conclusive presumption for an owner covenant not to solicit a business entity's employees or owners.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, one or more employees or owners of a business entity for the purpose of interfering with the employment or ownership relationship of such employees or owners shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is between a business entity and an owner of the business entity and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q10-ksa-50-163-owner" }, { "id": "q10-ksa-50-163-owner-customer", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(c)(3) supports the four-year conclusive presumption for an owner covenant not to solicit the business entity's material contact customers.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant in writing in which an owner agrees to not solicit, induce, persuade, encourage, service, direct or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q10-ksa-50-163-owner-customer" }, { "id": "q10-ksa-50-163-owner-def", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "K.S.A. 50-163", "citation": "K.S.A. 50-163(g)(3).", "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch50/050_001_0063.html", "proposition": "K.S.A. 50-163(g)(3) supports the broad statutory definition of owner, which includes sellers of business assets and equity interests.", "verbatimQuote": "\"Owner\" means a current or former owner or seller of all or any part of the assets of a business entity or any interest in a business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership interest, a membership interest in a limited liability company or a series limited liability company or any other equity interest or ownership interest.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas#src-q10-ksa-50-163-owner-def" } ] } ] } }