{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "new-jersey",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in New Jersey",
      "description": "New Jersey enforces non-competes under the common-law Solari/Whitmyer reasonableness test, readily reforms overbroad covenants, and faces pending legislation that would ban most of them.",
      "state": "New Jersey",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "New Jersey enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Solari/Whitmyer three-part reasonableness test and readily blue-pencils overbroad covenants, though a pending bill would ban most of them.",
        "keyLaw": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970); Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971)",
        "exceptions": "Sale-of-business more freely enforceable; physician public-interest scrutiny; psychologist rule (N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16); attorney ban (RPC 5.6)",
        "courtNarrowing": "rewrite",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Yes — court may toll the restricted period during an actual breach (ADP v. Kusins)",
        "maxLength": "No statutory limit",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Freely enforceable if tied to goodwill",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Solari/Whitmyer non-compete reasonableness applies"
      },
      "about": [
        "New Jersey non-compete agreements",
        "New Jersey restrictive covenants",
        "Solari Whitmyer reasonableness test",
        "New Jersey blue pencil reformation",
        "New Jersey physician non-compete public interest",
        "New Jersey psychologist restrictive covenant rule",
        "New Jersey attorney non-compete RPC 5.6",
        "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act",
        "New Jersey pending non-compete ban S1407 A1829"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-new-jersey"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in New Jersey?",
        "answerText": "Yes, when reasonable. New Jersey has no general non-compete statute for the ordinary workforce, so enforceability turns on the common-law Solari/Whitmyer test: a covenant is enforced only where it protects the employer's legitimate interests, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "solari-given-effect",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady",
            "citation": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/#:~:text=And%20while%20a%20covenant%20by,circumstances%20of%20the%20particular%20case.",
            "proposition": "Solari holds that an employee non-compete, though scrutinized for countervailing policy reasons, is given effect when reasonable in all the circumstances.",
            "verbatimQuote": "And while a covenant by an employee not to compete after the termination of his employment is not, because of the countervailing policy considerations, as freely enforceable, it will nonetheless be given effect if it is reasonable in view of all the circumstances of the particular case.",
            "date": "1970-04-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-solari-given-effect"
          },
          {
            "id": "solari-three-prong",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady",
            "citation": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/#:~:text=It%20will%20generally%20be%20found,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "Solari states the three-prong reasonableness test: legitimate employer interest, no undue hardship, and no injury to the public.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It will generally be found to be reasonable where it simply protects the legitimate interests of the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.",
            "date": "1970-04-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-solari-three-prong"
          },
          {
            "id": "more-three-prong",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=That%20test%20requires%20us%20to,be%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "More restates the New Jersey three-part reasonableness test for restrictive covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "That test requires us to determine whether (1) the restrictive covenant was necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests in enforcement, (2) whether it would cause undue hardship to the employee, and (3) whether it would be injurious to the public.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-more-three-prong"
          },
          {
            "id": "whitmyer-sale-of-business",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle",
            "citation": "Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2061132/whitmyer-bros-inc-v-doyle/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2061132/whitmyer-bros-inc-v-doyle/#:~:text=we%20pointed%20out%20that%20while,well%20recognized%20countervailing%20policy%20considerations.",
            "proposition": "Whitmyer distinguishes a seller's freely enforceable sale-of-business covenant from an employee's more closely scrutinized post-employment covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "we pointed out that while a seller’s noncompetitive covenant designed to protect the good will of the business for the buyer is freely enforceable, an employee’s covenant not to compete after the termination of his employment is not as freely enforceable because of well recognized countervailing policy considerations.",
            "date": "1971-03-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-whitmyer-sale-of-business"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "consideration",
        "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?",
        "heading": "Is continued employment enough consideration for a New Jersey non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Often, yes. New Jersey is comparatively employer-friendly on consideration: Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp. holds that adequate consideration for a post-employment restraint can be found in the original employment contract or in continued employment after the covenant is signed.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hogan-continued-employment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp.",
            "citation": "Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 153 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1977).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2358200/hogan-v-bergen-brunswig-corporation/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2358200/hogan-v-bergen-brunswig-corporation/#:~:text=The%20existence%20of%20sufficient%20consideration,part%2C%20the%20continuation%20of%20employment.",
            "proposition": "Hogan holds that consideration for a post-employment restraint may come from the original employment contract or from continued employment after signing.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The existence of sufficient consideration to support a post-employment restraint may be found in either the original contract of employment or in a post-employment contract, where the supporting consideration is at least, in part, the continuation of employment.",
            "date": "1977-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-hogan-continued-employment"
          },
          {
            "id": "hogan-three-years",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp.",
            "citation": "Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 153 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1977).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2358200/hogan-v-bergen-brunswig-corporation/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2358200/hogan-v-bergen-brunswig-corporation/#:~:text=The%20continuation%20of%20plaintiff's%20employment,consideration%20for%20the%20restrictive%20covenant.",
            "proposition": "Hogan finds that continued employment after the covenant was acknowledged supplied consideration, without any threat of discharge.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The continuation of plaintiff's employment for approximately three years after he signed the letter which acknowledges the covenant also provides consideration for the restrictive covenant.",
            "date": "1977-09-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-hogan-three-years"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "protectable-interests",
        "label": "What interests are protectable?",
        "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a New Jersey non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Trade secrets, confidential business information, and customer relationships are the recognized protectable interests, and the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act supplies the statutory trade-secret overlay.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "whitmyer-legitimate-interest",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle",
            "citation": "Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2061132/whitmyer-bros-inc-v-doyle/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2061132/whitmyer-bros-inc-v-doyle/#:~:text=But%20the%20employer%20has%20a,in%20protecting%20his%20customer%20relationships.",
            "proposition": "Whitmyer identifies trade secrets, confidential business information, and customer relationships as the employer's legitimate protectable interests.",
            "verbatimQuote": "But the employer has a patently legitimate interest in protecting his trade secrets as well as his confidential business information and he has an equally legitimate interest in protecting his customer relationships.",
            "date": "1971-03-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-whitmyer-legitimate-interest"
          },
          {
            "id": "ingersoll-protectable-interests",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Ciavatta",
            "citation": "Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Ciavatta, 110 N.J. 609 (1988).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1916343/ingersoll-rand-co-v-ciavatta/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1916343/ingersoll-rand-co-v-ciavatta/#:~:text=Employers%2C%20therefore%2C%20have%20the%20right,confidential%20information%2C%20and%20customer%20relations.",
            "proposition": "Ingersoll-Rand confirms that employers may protect trade secrets, confidential information, and customer relations through a restrictive covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Employers, therefore, have the right to protect their trade secrets, confidential information, and customer relations.",
            "date": "1988-06-22",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-ingersoll-protectable-interests"
          },
          {
            "id": "njtsa-trade-secret-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act",
            "citation": "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act, N.J.S.A. 56:15-2.",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2010/PL11/161_.PDF",
            "proposition": "The New Jersey Trade Secrets Act defines a trade secret by its independent economic value from secrecy and reasonable efforts to keep it secret.",
            "verbatimQuote": "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;",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-njtsa-trade-secret-definition"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "duration-limits",
        "label": "How much time and territory are reasonable?",
        "heading": "What duration and geographic scope are reasonable for a New Jersey non-compete?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory cap. New Jersey courts test duration and territory as part of the undue-hardship and public-interest analysis, and durations in the one-to-two-year range are commonly upheld when the geography is tailored to where the employee actually worked.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "more-two-year",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=On%20its%20face%20two%20years,assume%20Dr.%20More%E2%80%99s%20prior%20role.",
            "proposition": "More holds that, on its face, a two-year restriction is a reasonable period for the employer to replace and train a successor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "On its face two years appears to be a reasonable period for JFK to replace and train a person to assume Dr. More’s prior role.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-more-two-year"
          },
          {
            "id": "more-geography-reduced",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=We%20are%20satisfied%20that%20if,public%20that%20it%20presently%20has.",
            "proposition": "More reduces the geographic scope so a covenant no longer harms the public, illustrating territory analysis tied to public access.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We are satisfied that if the covenant were limited to a distance less than thirteen miles so that Somerset was not within the restricted area, the covenant would not have the same adverse impact on the public that it presently has.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-more-geography-reduced"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will New Jersey courts narrow overbroad covenants?",
        "heading": "Will a New Jersey court blue-pencil or reform an overbroad non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Yes. Solari abandoned the old void-per-se rule in favor of total or partial enforcement to the extent reasonable, so New Jersey courts narrow overbroad covenants rather than striking them down outright.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "solari-partial-enforcement",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady",
            "citation": "Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7374715/solari-industries-inc-v-malady/#:~:text=We%20are%20entirely%20satisfied%20that,extent%20reasonable%20under%20the%20circumstances.",
            "proposition": "Solari abandons the void-per-se rule in favor of total or partial enforcement of a covenant to the extent reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We are entirely satisfied that the time is well due for the abandonment of New Jersey’s void per se rule in favor of the rule which permits the total or partial enforcement of noncompetitive agreements to the extent reasonable under the circumstances.",
            "date": "1970-04-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-solari-partial-enforcement"
          },
          {
            "id": "rafferty-curtail-scope",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "ADP, LLC v. Rafferty",
            "citation": "ADP, LLC v. Rafferty, 923 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4614026/adp-llc-v-nicole-rafferty-adp-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4614026/adp-llc-v-nicole-rafferty-adp-llc/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20we%20will%20remand%20for,restrictive%20covenants%20such%20as%20these.",
            "proposition": "Rafferty describes curtailing an overbroad covenant's scope as the approach prescribed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, we will remand for the District Court to consider whether and to what extent it is necessary to curtail the restrictive covenants’ scope, which is the approach prescribed by the New Jersey Supreme Court when confronted with overbroad restrictive covenants such as these.",
            "date": "2019-04-26",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-rafferty-curtail-scope"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "non-solicitation",
        "label": "How are non-solicitation covenants treated?",
        "heading": "How does New Jersey treat customer and employee non-solicitation covenants?",
        "answerText": "Non-solicitation covenants are analyzed under the same Solari/Whitmyer reasonableness framework as non-competes, and overbroad ones are blue-penciled to a reasonable scope rather than discarded.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "kusins-blue-pencil-definition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "ADP, LLC v. Kusins",
            "citation": "ADP, LLC v. Kusins, 460 N.J. Super. 368 (App. Div. 2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4650682/adp-llc-vs-erik-kusins-adp-llc-vs-ryan-hopper-adp-llc-vs-anthony-m/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4650682/adp-llc-vs-erik-kusins-adp-llc-vs-ryan-hopper-adp-llc-vs-anthony-m/#:~:text=The%20term%20%22blue%20pencil%5Bing%5D%22%20refers,tailoring%20of%20a%20restrictive%20covenant.",
            "proposition": "Kusins describes blue-penciling as a court's modification or tailoring of a restrictive covenant, the remedy applied to overbroad non-solicitation provisions.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The term \"blue pencil[ing]\" refers to a court's modification or tailoring of a restrictive covenant.",
            "date": "2019-07-26",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-kusins-blue-pencil-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "rafferty-legitimate-interests",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "ADP, LLC v. Rafferty",
            "citation": "ADP, LLC v. Rafferty, 923 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4614026/adp-llc-v-nicole-rafferty-adp-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4614026/adp-llc-v-nicole-rafferty-adp-llc/#:~:text=Applying%20New%20Jersey%20law%2C%20we,with%20the%20state%E2%80%99s%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "Rafferty concludes that ADP's tiered restrictive covenants furthered legitimate business interests and complied with New Jersey public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Applying New Jersey law, we conclude that both tiers of ADP’s restrictive covenants further legitimate business interests and otherwise comply with the state’s public policy.",
            "date": "2019-04-26",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-rafferty-legitimate-interests"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does a New Jersey non-compete toll during breach?",
        "heading": "Does a New Jersey non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?",
        "answerText": "It can. In ADP, LLC v. Kusins, the Appellate Division enforced contractual tolling and remanded for the trial court to toll the restricted period during the time the former employees were violating their covenants.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "kusins-tolling",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "ADP, LLC v. Kusins",
            "citation": "ADP, LLC v. Kusins, 460 N.J. Super. 368 (App. Div. 2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4650682/adp-llc-vs-erik-kusins-adp-llc-vs-ryan-hopper-adp-llc-vs-anthony-m/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4650682/adp-llc-vs-erik-kusins-adp-llc-vs-ryan-hopper-adp-llc-vs-anthony-m/#:~:text=In%20all%20of%20the%20matters,the%20period%20of%20defendants'%20violations.",
            "proposition": "Kusins remands for the trial court to toll the restricted periods during the time the defendants were violating their covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In all of the matters other than Kusins, we remand for a determination of the appropriate remedy for each defendant's breach of the RCA, including a tolling of the time limitations of the RCAs during the period of defendants' violations.",
            "date": "2019-07-26",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-kusins-tolling"
          },
          {
            "id": "more-no-extension",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=Because%20restrictive%20covenants%20are%20not,the%20agreement%20beyond%20that%20period.",
            "proposition": "More declines to extend a covenant beyond its stated period because restrictive covenants are not favored in the law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Because restrictive covenants are not favored in the law, we find no justification to extend the agreement beyond that period.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-more-no-extension"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "physician-covenants",
        "label": "Are physician non-competes treated differently?",
        "heading": "How does New Jersey treat physician and health-care non-competes?",
        "answerText": "Physician covenants are enforceable when reasonable, but the public-interest prong gets close scrutiny. In More, the New Jersey Supreme Court applied the three-part test to a neurosurgeon's covenant and reduced its geographic reach to protect public access to care.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q8-more-three-prong",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=That%20test%20requires%20us%20to,be%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "More applies the three-part reasonableness test to a physician covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "That test requires us to determine whether (1) the restrictive covenant was necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests in enforcement, (2) whether it would cause undue hardship to the employee, and (3) whether it would be injurious to the public.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-q8-more-three-prong"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-more-geography-reduced",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More",
            "citation": "Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957320/community-hospital-group-inc-v-more/#:~:text=We%20are%20satisfied%20that%20if,public%20that%20it%20presently%20has.",
            "proposition": "More reduces a physician covenant's geographic reach to protect the public rather than voiding it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We are satisfied that if the covenant were limited to a distance less than thirteen miles so that Somerset was not within the restricted area, the covenant would not have the same adverse impact on the public that it presently has.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-q8-more-geography-reduced"
          },
          {
            "id": "pierson-physician-standard",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Pierson v. Medical Health Centers, P.A.",
            "citation": "Pierson v. Medical Health Centers, P.A., 183 N.J. 65 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957686/pierson-v-medical-health-centers/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1957686/pierson-v-medical-health-centers/#:~:text=Rather%2C%20the%20trial%20court%20must,adverse%20to%20the%20public%20interest.",
            "proposition": "Pierson directs the trial court to test a physician covenant for legitimate interest, undue hardship, and public interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Rather, the trial court must determine whether the restrictive covenant protects the legitimate interests of the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not adverse to the public interest.",
            "date": "2005-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-pierson-physician-standard"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "professional-carveouts",
        "label": "Which professions have special limits?",
        "heading": "Which New Jersey professions have special non-compete limits?",
        "answerText": "Psychologists are the clearest example. A New Jersey regulation bars a licensed psychologist from entering a business agreement that restricts a client's ability to keep seeing the therapist of choice, and Comprehensive Psychology System, P.C. v. Prince treated that rule as controlling.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "njac-therapist-choice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16",
            "citation": "N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16.",
            "url": "https://dspace.njstatelib.org/bitstreams/13f70d2e-c854-4547-9f99-9997089d3164/download",
            "proposition": "N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16 bars a psychologist from any business agreement that restricts a client's ability to keep seeing the therapist of choice.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A licensee shall not enter into any business agreement that interferes with or restricts the ability of a client to see or continue to see his or her therapist of choice.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-njac-therapist-choice"
          },
          {
            "id": "prince-patient-rights",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Comprehensive Psychology System, P.C. v. Prince",
            "citation": "Comprehensive Psychology Sys., P.C. v. Prince, 375 N.J. Super. 273 (App. Div. 2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1547623/comprehensive-psycho-sys-v-prince/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1547623/comprehensive-psycho-sys-v-prince/#:~:text=We%20are%20satisfied%20that%20the%20new,the%20rights%20of%20the%20patient.",
            "proposition": "Prince reads the psychologist regulation as shifting the focus from the psychologist's rights to the patient's rights.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We are satisfied that the new regulation merely articulates the same restriction in language that shifts the focus of concern from the rights of the psychologist to the rights of the patient.",
            "date": "2005-02-07",
            "pullQuoteLocator": "We are satisfied that the new|the rights of the patient.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-prince-patient-rights"
          },
          {
            "id": "prince-treatment-interference",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Comprehensive Psychology System, P.C. v. Prince",
            "citation": "Comprehensive Psychology Sys., P.C. v. Prince, 375 N.J. Super. 273 (App. Div. 2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1547623/comprehensive-psycho-sys-v-prince/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1547623/comprehensive-psycho-sys-v-prince/#:~:text=We%20also%20are%20persuaded%20that%2C,an%20ongoing%20course%20of%20treatment.",
            "proposition": "Prince holds the patient-psychologist relationship forbids restraints that interfere with ongoing treatment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We also are persuaded that, apart from the existence of the regulations, the nature of the practice of psychology and the uniquely personal patient-psychologist relationship forbid any restrictions which might interfere with an ongoing course of treatment.",
            "date": "2005-02-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-prince-treatment-interference"
          },
          {
            "id": "rpc-attorney-restriction",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.J. Ct. R., RPC 5.6",
            "citation": "N.J. Ct. R., RPC 5.6.",
            "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rpc.pdf",
            "proposition": "RPC 5.6 bars a lawyer from a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the right to practice after the relationship ends, except for retirement benefits.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (a) a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the rights of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement; or (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy between private parties.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-rpc-attorney-restriction"
          },
          {
            "id": "jacob-indirect-restriction",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus",
            "citation": "Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10 (1992).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1984610/jacob-v-norris-mclaughlin-marcus/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1984610/jacob-v-norris-mclaughlin-marcus/#:~:text=We%20believe%20that%20indirect%20restrictions,the%20spirit%20of%20RPC%205.6.",
            "proposition": "Jacob holds that indirect financial-disincentive provisions, not just outright bans, violate RPC 5.6.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We believe that indirect restrictions on the practice of law, such as the financial disincentives at issue in this case, likewise violate both the language and the spirit of RPC 5.6.",
            "date": "1992-05-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-jacob-indirect-restriction"
          },
          {
            "id": "jacob-public-policy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus",
            "citation": "Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10 (1992).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1984610/jacob-v-norris-mclaughlin-marcus/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1984610/jacob-v-norris-mclaughlin-marcus/#:~:text=We%20conclude%20that%20the%20Agreement's,unenforceable%20as%20against%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "Jacob holds an attorney competitive-departure provision that restricts the practice of law is unenforceable as against public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We conclude that the Agreement's competitive departure provision restricts the practice of law in contravention of RPC 5.6 and is therefore unenforceable as against public policy.",
            "date": "1992-05-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-jacob-public-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "acpe-708-inhouse",
            "authorityType": "agency-guidance",
            "tier": "official-source-backed",
            "title": "ACPE Opinion 708",
            "citation": "N.J. Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 708 (2006).",
            "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2006/07/ACPEOpinion708.pdf",
            "proposition": "Opinion 708 confirms in-house and corporate counsel in New Jersey must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 5.6, whether or not admitted in the State.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Therefore, it is our opinion that in-house or corporate counsel in New Jersey must abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of whether they are members of the bar of our State.",
            "date": "2006-07-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-acpe-708-inhouse"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "confidentiality-lad",
        "label": "Can confidentiality clauses replace a non-compete?",
        "heading": "Can confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses replace a New Jersey non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Partly, but watch the discrimination-law trap. Trade-secret and confidentiality protection is available under the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act, yet a 2019 amendment to the Law Against Discrimination makes a clause unenforceable when it conceals the details of a discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "njtsa-short-title",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act",
            "citation": "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act, N.J.S.A. 56:15-1.",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2010/PL11/161_.PDF",
            "proposition": "The New Jersey Trade Secrets Act provides a statutory trade-secret regime that operates as an alternative to a non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This act shall be known and may be cited as the \"New Jersey Trade Secrets Act.\"",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-njtsa-short-title"
          },
          {
            "id": "lad-conceal-unenforceable",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 (P.L.2019, c.39)",
            "citation": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2018/PL19/39_.PDF",
            "proposition": "The 2019 LAD amendment makes a contract or settlement provision unenforceable when its purpose or effect is to conceal the details of a discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A provision in any employment contract or settlement agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment (hereinafter referred to as a “non-disclosure provision”) shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable against a current or former employee (hereinafter referred to as an “employee”) who is a party to the contract or settlement.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-lad-conceal-unenforceable"
          },
          {
            "id": "lad-noncompete-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 (P.L.2019, c.39)",
            "citation": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(c).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2018/PL19/39_.PDF",
            "proposition": "The same LAD section expressly preserves agreements not to compete and not to disclose proprietary information.",
            "verbatimQuote": "this section shall not be construed to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to sign an agreement: (1) in which the employee agrees not to enter into competition with the employer during or after employment;",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-lad-noncompete-carveout"
          },
          {
            "id": "lad-fee-shifting",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.9 (P.L.2019, c.39)",
            "citation": "N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.9.",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2018/PL19/39_.PDF",
            "proposition": "A party that enforces or attempts to enforce a barred concealment provision is liable for the employee's attorney fees and costs.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A person who enforces or attempts to enforce a provision deemed against public policy and unenforceable pursuant to P.L.2019, c.39 (C.10:5-12.7 et seq.) shall be liable for the employee’s reasonable attorney fees and costs.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-lad-fee-shifting"
          },
          {
            "id": "savage-nondisparagement-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Savage v. Township of Neptune",
            "citation": "Savage v. Township of Neptune, 257 N.J. 204 (2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9499942/christine-savage-v-township-of-neptune/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9499942/christine-savage-v-township-of-neptune/#:~:text=The%20non%2Ddisparagement%20clause%20in%20the,policy%20and%20cannot%20be%20enforced.",
            "proposition": "Savage holds a non-disparagement clause unenforceable as against public policy under the LAD concealment rule.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The non-disparagement clause in the agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced.",
            "date": "2024-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-savage-nondisparagement-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "savage-labels-dont-control",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Savage v. Township of Neptune",
            "citation": "Savage v. Township of Neptune, 257 N.J. 204 (2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9499942/christine-savage-v-township-of-neptune/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9499942/christine-savage-v-township-of-neptune/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20labels%20like,the%20meaning%20of%20section%2012.8.",
            "proposition": "Savage explains that the label on a clause does not control whether the LAD concealment rule applies.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As a result, labels like \"non-disclosure,\" which is in the text, or \"non-disparagement,\" which is not, do not control the meaning of section 12.8.",
            "date": "2024-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-savage-labels-dont-control"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "pending-legislation",
        "label": "What pending legislation should employers watch?",
        "heading": "What pending New Jersey non-compete legislation should employers watch?",
        "answerText": "None is law yet. Bills S1407 and A1829, introduced in the 2026 session, would prohibit non-compete clauses for most workers, void no-poach agreements, and leave only a narrow senior-executive carve-out that itself requires full pay during the restricted period.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "s1407-ban",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Senate Bill No. 1407 (2026)",
            "citation": "S1407, 222nd Leg. (N.J. 2026).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S1500/1407_I1.PDF",
            "proposition": "S1407, as introduced, would prohibit an employer from obtaining a non-compete clause from a worker who is not a senior executive.",
            "verbatimQuote": "With respect to a worker who is not a senior executive, an employer shall not: seek, require, demand, or accept a non-compete clause from the worker after the effective date of this act;",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-s1407-ban"
          },
          {
            "id": "s1407-no-poach",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Senate Bill No. 1407 (2026)",
            "citation": "S1407, 222nd Leg. (N.J. 2026).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S1500/1407_I1.PDF",
            "proposition": "S1407 would declare no-poach agreements contrary to public policy and void.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No-poach agreements are hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and any no-poach agreement shall be void.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-s1407-no-poach"
          },
          {
            "id": "a1829-senior-executive",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 1829 (2026)",
            "citation": "A1829, 222nd Leg. (N.J. 2026).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/A2000/1829_I1.PDF",
            "proposition": "A1829 defines the narrow senior-executive category by a policy-making role and a compensation threshold.",
            "verbatimQuote": "“Senior executive” means a worker who is in a policy-making position with an employer and is paid total compensation of not less than $151,164 during the year immediately preceding the end of employment, or not less than $151,164 when annualized if the worker was employed during only part of the preceding year.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-a1829-senior-executive"
          },
          {
            "id": "s1407-garden-leave",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Senate Bill No. 1407 (2026)",
            "citation": "S1407, 222nd Leg. (N.J. 2026).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S1500/1407_I1.PDF",
            "proposition": "S1407 would require a surviving senior-executive covenant to pay the worker 100 percent of pay during the restricted period.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The non-compete clause provides that during any period after the employment relationship ends in which the worker is prevented from engaging in work or taking employment because of restrictions imposed by the non-compete clause, the employer, unless the worker is terminated for misconduct or there is a breach by the worker, shall pay the worker an amount equal to 100 percent of the pay to which the worker would be entitled for the work during that period; and make any benefit contributions needed to maintain the fringe benefits to which the worker would be entitled during that period.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-s1407-garden-leave"
          },
          {
            "id": "s1407-sale-of-business",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "New Jersey Senate Bill No. 1407 (2026)",
            "citation": "S1407, 222nd Leg. (N.J. 2026).",
            "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/S1500/1407_I1.PDF",
            "proposition": "S1407 would exempt a non-compete entered as part of a bona-fide sale of a business from the ban.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To a non-compete clause that is entered into by an employer pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the employer's ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity's operating assets;",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-s1407-sale-of-business"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay",
        "label": "Did the FTC rule change New Jersey law?",
        "heading": "Did the FTC's federal non-compete rule change New Jersey non-compete law?",
        "answerText": "No. The FTC's 2024 nationwide Non-Compete Rule was set aside by a federal court before it took effect, so New Jersey non-competes remain governed by state common law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission",
            "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=The%20Non%2DCompete%20Rule%2C%2016%20C.F.R.,September%204%2C%202024%2C%20or%20thereafter.",
            "proposition": "Ryan supports the rule that the FTC Non-Compete Rule was set aside and did not take effect.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.",
            "date": "2024-08-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside"
          },
          {
            "id": "ryan-ftc-unlawful",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission",
            "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20the%20Court%20concludes%20that,Rule%20is%20arbitrary%20and%20capricious.",
            "proposition": "Ryan supports the federal court's holding that the FTC lacked statutory authority and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In sum, the Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non- Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious.",
            "date": "2024-08-20",
            "pullQuoteLocator": "In sum, the Court concludes that|Rule is arbitrary and capricious.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey#src-ryan-ftc-unlawful"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}