{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "nevada", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Nevada", "description": "A question-by-question summary of Nevada non-compete law, including NRS 613.195, mandatory judicial revision, hourly-wage workers, volunteer customer limits, layoffs, assignment in transactions, healthcare covenants, and trade-secret alternatives.", "state": "Nevada", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Nevada enforces employee non-competes that meet a four-part statutory reasonableness test, but bans them for solely hourly-wage workers and requires courts to revise overbroad covenants.", "keyLaw": "NRS 613.195", "exceptions": "Hourly-wage workers excluded; volunteer-customer safe harbor; layoff/RIF enforceable only while employer pays; sale-of-business antitrust carve-out (NRS 598A.040)", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Silent — no authority", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "Hourly-wage workers excluded", "saleOfBusiness": "Allowed — NRS 598A.040 carve-out", "customerNonSolicit": "Volunteer-customer safe harbor", "employeeNonSolicit": "Not addressed" }, "about": [ "Nevada non-compete agreements", "NRS 613.195 noncompetition covenants", "Nevada mandatory judicial revision of overbroad covenants", "Nevada hourly-wage worker non-compete ban", "Nevada volunteer customer safe harbor", "Nevada sale-of-business and merger assignment rules", "Nevada physician and healthcare non-competes", "Nevada 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-nevada" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Nevada?", "answerText": "Yes, if they satisfy Nevada's statute. A non-compete is void unless it is supported by valuable consideration, protects no more than the employer needs, avoids undue hardship, and uses restrictions appropriate to the consideration given.", "sources": [ { "id": "q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(1).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(1) supports the four-part Nevada enforceability test for employee non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability" } ] }, { "slug": "valid-covenant-requirements", "label": "What must a valid covenant satisfy?", "heading": "What must a valid Nevada non-compete satisfy?", "answerText": "Four statutory requirements. The covenant must have valuable consideration, avoid restraints greater than necessary, avoid undue hardship, and keep the restrictions appropriate to the consideration supporting the covenant.", "sources": [ { "id": "q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(1)(a)-(d).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(1)(a)-(d) supports the four statutory requirements for a valid Nevada non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q2-nrs-613-195-four-prong" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Must courts revise overbroad covenants?", "heading": "Must a Nevada court revise an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it?", "answerText": "Usually yes, when revision is possible. NRS 613.195(6) directs the court to revise and enforce an overbroad but consideration-supported covenant, and Tough Turtle Turf confirms that judicial revision is mandatory when the court can revise instead of rewrite the agreement.", "sources": [ { "id": "q3-nrs-613-195-revision", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(6).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(6) supports mandatory judicial revision and enforcement of a consideration-supported Nevada non-compete that is overbroad or imposes undue hardship.", "verbatimQuote": "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds the covenant is supported by valuable consideration but contains limitations as to time, geographical area or scope of activity to be restrained that are not reasonable, imposes a greater restraint than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed or imposes undue hardship on the employee, the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-nrs-613-195-revision" }, { "id": "q3-golden-road-old-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam", "citation": "Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 132 Nev. 476, 376 P.3d 151 (2016).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4240728/golden-rd-motor-inn-v-islam/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4240728/golden-rd-motor-inn-v-islam/#:~:text=Under%20Nevada%20law%2C%20such%20an,the%20noncompete%20agreement%20wholly%20unenforceable.", "proposition": "Golden Road supports the pre-2017 Nevada rule that an unreasonable non-compete was wholly unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "Under Nevada law, such an unreasonable provision renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable.", "date": "2016-07-21", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-golden-road-old-rule" }, { "id": "q3-tough-turtle-overruled", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott", "citation": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=This%20provision%20overruled%20Golden%20Road's,covenant%20can%20never%20be%20revised.", "proposition": "Tough Turtle Turf supports that NRS 613.195(6) overruled Golden Road's no-revision holding.", "verbatimQuote": "This provision overruled Golden Road's holding that an unreasonable noncompete covenant can never be revised.", "date": "2023-11-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-tough-turtle-overruled" }, { "id": "q3-tough-turtle-mandatory", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott", "citation": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=It%20nonetheless%20mandates%20judicial%20revision,subjecting%20employees%20to%20unreasonable%20terms.", "proposition": "Tough Turtle Turf supports that Nevada courts must revise a restrictive covenant when revision can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms.", "verbatimQuote": "It nonetheless mandates judicial revision of a restrictive covenant if this can be done without subjecting employees to unreasonable terms.", "date": "2023-11-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-tough-turtle-mandatory" }, { "id": "q3-tough-turtle-rewrite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott", "citation": "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 47, 537 P.3d 883 (2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456796/tough-turtle-turf-llc-v-scott/#:~:text=Reading%20subsection%20(1)%20harmoniously%20with,than%20revise%20the%20noncompete%20covenant.", "proposition": "Tough Turtle Turf supports that a Nevada non-compete remains unenforceable when no valuable consideration supports it or when the court would have to rewrite rather than revise the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "Reading subsection (1) harmoniously with subsection (6) indicates that there are instances when a noncompete covenant will be unenforceable, such as when no valuable consideration supports the noncompete covenant or when the court would need to rewrite rather than revise the noncompete covenant.", "date": "2023-11-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-tough-turtle-rewrite" }, { "id": "q3-duong-savings-clause", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd.", "citation": "Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 87, 478 P.3d 380 (2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5304741/duong-md-vs-fielden-hanson-isaacs-miyada-robison-yeh-ltd/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5304741/duong-md-vs-fielden-hanson-isaacs-miyada-robison-yeh-ltd/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20Golden%20Road,agreement%20itself%20allows%20for%20it.", "proposition": "Duong supports that Golden Road did not bar court blue-penciling when the non-compete agreement itself authorized judicial modification.", "verbatimQuote": "We hold that Golden Road does not prohibit a district court from blue-penciling an unreasonable noncompetition agreement if the agreement itself allows for it.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q3-duong-savings-clause" } ] }, { "slug": "hourly-wage-workers", "label": "Can hourly workers be bound?", "heading": "Can a Nevada non-compete apply to an hourly-wage worker?", "answerText": "No, if the employee is paid solely on an hourly wage basis. NRS 613.195(3) says a non-compete may not apply to that employee, excluding tips and gratuities from the analysis.", "sources": [ { "id": "q4-nrs-613-195-hourly", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(3).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(3) supports the Nevada ban on applying a non-compete to an employee paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q4-nrs-613-195-hourly" }, { "id": "q4-nrs-613-195-fees", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(7).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(7) supports the mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs to an employee when an employer's covenant unlawfully reaches a solely hourly-wage employee described in subsection 3.", "verbatimQuote": "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q4-nrs-613-195-fees" } ] }, { "slug": "volunteer-customers", "label": "Can employees serve customers who seek them out?", "heading": "Can a Nevada employer stop a former employee from serving a customer who sought them out?", "answerText": "Usually no, if the statutory safe harbor is met. Nevada bars an employer from restricting service to a former customer when the employee did not solicit the customer, the customer voluntarily chose the employee, and the employee otherwise follows the covenant's valid time, geographic, and activity limits.", "sources": [ { "id": "q5-nrs-613-195-customer", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(2).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(2) supports Nevada's volunteer-customer safe harbor for former employees who did not solicit the customer and otherwise comply with valid covenant limits.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant may not restrict, and an employer may not bring an action to restrict, a former employee of an employer from providing service to a former customer or client if: (a) The former employee did not solicit the former customer or client; (b) The customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) The former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q5-nrs-613-195-customer" }, { "id": "q5-nrs-613-195-fees", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(7).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(7) supports the mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs to an employee when an employer restricts or attempts to restrict protected volunteer-customer service described in subsection 2.", "verbatimQuote": "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q5-nrs-613-195-fees" } ] }, { "slug": "layoff-reduction-in-force", "label": "What happens after a layoff?", "heading": "What happens to a Nevada non-compete after a layoff or reduction in force?", "answerText": "It is enforceable only while the employer keeps paying. For an employer-driven reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring, Nevada allows enforcement only during the period the employer pays salary, benefits, equivalent compensation, or severance.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-nrs-613-195-rif", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(5).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(5) supports Nevada's rule that a non-compete after a reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring is enforceable only while the employer pays salary, benefits, equivalent compensation, or severance.", "verbatimQuote": "If the termination of the employment of an employee is the result of a reduction of force, reorganization or similar restructuring of the employer, a noncompetition covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including, without limitation, severance pay.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q6-nrs-613-195-rif" } ] }, { "slug": "fees-penalties", "label": "What penalties apply?", "heading": "What are the penalties for enforcing an unlawful Nevada non-compete?", "answerText": "Fee shifting can be mandatory. If the employer enforces against a solely hourly-wage employee, or restricts or attempts to restrict a protected volunteer-customer situation, the court must award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs.", "sources": [ { "id": "q7-nrs-613-195-fees", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(7).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(7) supports mandatory attorney fee and cost awards to employees in specified unlawful non-compete enforcement cases.", "verbatimQuote": "If an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition covenant or an employee brings an action to challenge a noncompetition covenant and the court finds that the noncompetition covenant applies to an employee described in subsection 3 or that the employer has restricted or attempted to restrict a former employee in the manner described in subsection 2, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q7-nrs-613-195-fees" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "What consideration supports a covenant?", "heading": "What consideration supports a Nevada non-compete?", "answerText": "Historically, continued at-will employment was enough, but the modern statute adds a proportionality question. Camco held continued employment sufficient at common law, while NRS 613.195 now also requires restrictions appropriate to the valuable consideration supporting the covenant.", "sources": [ { "id": "q8-camco-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Camco, Inc. v. Baker", "citation": "Camco, Inc. v. Baker, 113 Nev. 512, 936 P.2d 829 (1997).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1224995/camco-inc-v-baker/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1224995/camco-inc-v-baker/#:~:text=Today%20we%20adopt%20the%20majority,for%20enforcing%20a%20non%2Dcompetition%20agreement.", "proposition": "Camco supports the Nevada common-law rule that continued employment in an at-will context can be sufficient consideration for a post-hire non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "Today we adopt the majority rule which states that an at-will employee's continued employment is sufficient consideration for enforcing a non-competition agreement.", "date": "1997-04-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q8-camco-consideration" }, { "id": "q8-nrs-613-195-consideration", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(1)(a), (d).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(1)(a) and (d) support the current statutory requirements of valuable consideration and restrictions appropriate to that consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q8-nrs-613-195-consideration" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does tolling extend the period?", "heading": "Does a Nevada non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?", "answerText": "This is an open question. Nevada's staged statute and cases do not squarely address judicial tolling or contractual extension clauses, though NRS 613.195(6) lets a court revise and enforce reasonable terms when revision is possible.", "sources": [ { "id": "q9-nrs-613-195-revision", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(6).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(6) supports Nevada judicial revision of time, geographic, and activity limits so that revised restrictions are reasonable and no broader than necessary.", "verbatimQuote": "Such revisions must cause the limitations contained in the covenant as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable, to not impose undue hardship on the employee and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q9-nrs-613-195-revision" } ] }, { "slug": "assignment-sale-merger", "label": "Can covenants be assigned?", "heading": "Can a Nevada non-compete be assigned in a sale of the business or a merger?", "answerText": "It depends on the transaction. In an asset sale, Traffic Control Services treats employee non-competes as personal and unassignable absent the employee's express consent, obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration; in a statutory merger, HD Supply says the nonassignability rule does not apply.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-traffic-control-consent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc.", "citation": "Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 120 Nev. 168, 87 P.3d 1054 (2004).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8085820/traffic-control-services-inc-v-united-rentals-northwest-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8085820/traffic-control-services-inc-v-united-rentals-northwest-inc/#:~:text=Covenants%20not%20to%20compete%20are,to%20support%20the%20underlying%20covenant.", "proposition": "Traffic Control Services supports that employee non-competes are personal and unassignable in an asset sale absent the employee's express consent obtained through arm's-length negotiation and supported by separate consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "Covenants not to compete are personal in nature and therefore are not assignable absent the employee's express consent. Further, an employer must obtain such consent through arm's-length negotiation with the employee, supported by valuable consideration beyond that necessary to support the underlying covenant.", "date": "2004-04-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q10-traffic-control-consent" }, { "id": "q10-hd-supply-merger", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen", "citation": "HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 125 Nev. 200, 210 P.3d 183 (2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2575254/hd-supply-facilities-maintenance-ltd-v-bymoen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2575254/hd-supply-facilities-maintenance-ltd-v-bymoen/#:~:text=Traffic%20Control's%20rule%20of%20nonassignability,the%20result%20of%20a%20merger.", "proposition": "HD Supply supports that Traffic Control's nonassignability rule does not apply when restrictive employment covenants pass to a successor corporation through a statutory merger.", "verbatimQuote": "Traffic Control's rule of nonassignability does not apply when a successor corporation acquires restrictive employment covenants as the result of a merger.", "date": "2009-06-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q10-hd-supply-merger" }, { "id": "q10-nrs-598a-sale-business", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 598A.040", "citation": "NRS 598A.040(5).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-598A.html", "proposition": "NRS 598A.040(5) supports Nevada's antitrust carve-out for reasonable sale-of-business restrictive covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "Restrictive covenants: (a) Which are part of a contract of sale for a business and which bar the seller of the business from competing with the purchaser of the business sold within a reasonable market area for a reasonable period of time; or (b) Which are part of a commercial shopping center lease and which bar the parties from permitting or engaging in the furnishing of certain services or the sale of certain commodities within the commercial shopping center where such leased premises are located.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q10-nrs-598a-sale-business" } ] }, { "slug": "healthcare-physicians", "label": "What about healthcare covenants?", "heading": "Are Nevada physician and healthcare non-competes enforceable?", "answerText": "No healthcare-specific ban appears in Nevada's non-compete statute, so a physician or healthcare covenant is not automatically void — but it is not automatically enforceable either. It is judged case by case under the general NRS 613.195 requirements: valuable consideration, no excessive restraint, no undue hardship, and proportional restrictions.", "sources": [ { "id": "q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.195", "citation": "NRS 613.195(1).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(1) supports the general four-part validity test that Nevada applies to a physician or healthcare non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q11-nrs-613-195-healthcare" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets-ndas", "label": "Are trade-secret and NDA tools available?", "heading": "How do Nevada trade-secret protections and NDAs compare to non-competes?", "answerText": "They remain available and often narrower. Nevada has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and NRS 613.200 expressly allows reasonable, consideration-supported confidentiality agreements covering trade secrets and confidential business information.", "sources": [ { "id": "q12-nrs-600a-010-utsa", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 600A.010", "citation": "NRS 600A.010.", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600A.html", "proposition": "NRS 600A.010 supports that Nevada has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.", "verbatimQuote": "This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q12-nrs-600a-010-utsa" }, { "id": "q12-nrs-600a-030-trade-secret", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 600A.030", "citation": "NRS 600A.030(5)(a).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600A.html", "proposition": "NRS 600A.030(5)(a) supports Nevada's trade-secret definition based on independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts.", "verbatimQuote": "“Trade secret”: (a) Means information, including, without limitation, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming instruction or code that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public or any other persons who can obtain commercial or 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/nevada#src-q12-nrs-600a-030-trade-secret" }, { "id": "q12-nrs-613-200-mobility", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.200", "citation": "NRS 613.200(1).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.200(1) supports Nevada's general prohibition on willfully preventing a discharged or departing person from obtaining employment elsewhere in Nevada, subject to statutory exceptions.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 613.195 , any person, association, company or corporation within this State, or any agent or officer on behalf of the person, association, company or corporation, who willfully does anything intended to prevent any person who for any cause left or was discharged from his, her or its employ from obtaining employment elsewhere in this State is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q12-nrs-613-200-mobility" }, { "id": "q12-nrs-613-200-nda", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "NRS 613.200", "citation": "NRS 613.200(4).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.200(4) supports Nevada's exception preserving reasonable, consideration-supported confidentiality agreements for trade secrets and confidential business information.", "verbatimQuote": "The provisions of this section do not prohibit a person, association, company, corporation, agent or officer from negotiating, executing and enforcing an agreement with an employee of the person, association, company or corporation which, upon termination of the employment, prohibits the employee from disclosing any trade secrets, business methods, lists of customers, secret formulas or processes or confidential information learned or obtained during the course of his or her employment with the person, association, company or corporation if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in its scope and duration.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada#src-q12-nrs-613-200-nda" } ] } ] } }