{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "ohio", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Ohio", "description": "Ohio enforces non-competes only when the restraint is reasonable under the Raimonde rule, and its courts may reform an overbroad covenant or decline to enforce it at all.", "state": "Ohio", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Ohio enforces an employee non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable under the Raimonde test — no broader than needed to protect the employer, not unduly harsh on the employee, and not injurious to the public.", "keyLaw": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21 (1975)", "exceptions": "Physician public-interest scrutiny; pending S.B. 301 (nonprofit-hospital cap) and S.B. 11 (broad ban) not enacted", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Yes — a covenant may not expire while enforceability is litigated (Homan)", "maxLength": "No statutory cap", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Not addressed", "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies", "employeeNonSolicit": "Enforceable under the same Raimonde reasonableness test as a non-compete" }, "about": [ "Ohio non-compete agreements", "Ohio restrictive covenants", "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah reasonableness test", "Ohio non-compete reformation and red pencil", "Lake Land v. Columber consideration rule", "Acordia v. Fishel successor enforcement", "Ohio 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-ohio" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Ohio?", "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. Ohio is a reasonableness state, not a general ban state. A non-compete is enforceable only to the extent it is reasonable — meaning it is no greater than needed to protect the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "sources": [ { "id": "raimonde-reasonableness-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20an%20employee,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Raimonde sets Ohio's three-part rule that a post-employment covenant is reasonable only if it is no greater than required to protect the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-raimonde-reasonableness-test" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for an Ohio non-compete?", "answerText": "Yes. Unlike some states, Ohio holds that an employer's agreement to continue an at-will employment relationship is itself sufficient consideration for a non-compete an existing employee signs.", "sources": [ { "id": "lakeland-continued-employment", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber", "citation": "Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 101 Ohio St. 3d 242, 2004-Ohio-786.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6892723/lake-land-employment-group-of-akron-llc-v-columber/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6892723/lake-land-employment-group-of-akron-llc-v-columber/#:~:text=We%20therefore%20hold%20that%20consideration,legally%20be%20terminated%20without%20cause.", "proposition": "Lake Land holds that continuing an at-will employment relationship that could be terminated without cause is sufficient consideration for a non-compete signed by an existing employee.", "verbatimQuote": "We therefore hold that consideration exists to support a noncompetition agreement when, in exchange for the assent of an at-will employee to a proffered noncompetition agreement, the employer continues an at-will employment relationship that could legally be terminated without cause.", "date": "2004-03-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-lakeland-continued-employment" }, { "id": "q2-raimonde-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20an%20employee,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Raimonde requires that a covenant supported by consideration still be reasonable in its protection of the employer, hardship on the employee, and public effect.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-q2-raimonde-reasonableness" } ] }, { "slug": "protectable-interests", "label": "What interests are protectable?", "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support an Ohio non-compete?", "answerText": "Confidential information, trade secrets, and customer goodwill are the core interests that justify a tailored Ohio restraint. The Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act supplies the statutory trade-secret overlay that runs alongside the covenant.", "sources": [ { "id": "raimonde-confidential-factor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=whether%20the%20employee%20is%20possessed,seeks%20to%20eliminate%20ordinary%20competition", "proposition": "Raimonde lists the protectable-interest factors, including whether the employee possessed confidential information or trade secrets and whether the covenant targets unfair rather than ordinary competition.", "verbatimQuote": "whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-raimonde-confidential-factor" }, { "id": "outsa-trade-secret-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61", "citation": "Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61(D).", "url": "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1333.61", "proposition": "R.C. 1333.61 supplies Ohio's statutory trade-secret definition, which turns on independent economic value from secrecy and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.", "verbatimQuote": "(1) It 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.(2) It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-outsa-trade-secret-definition" }, { "id": "outsa-injunction", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.62", "citation": "Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.62(A).", "url": "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1333.62", "proposition": "R.C. 1333.62(A) gives a statutory remedy independent of any covenant: actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined.", "verbatimQuote": "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-outsa-injunction" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "How much time and territory are reasonable?", "heading": "What duration and geographic scope are reasonable for an Ohio non-compete?", "answerText": "There is no statutory cap. Ohio courts weigh duration and territory together against the employer's actual protectable interest under Raimonde, and they may cut back a restraint that reaches further than necessary.", "sources": [ { "id": "q4-raimonde-factors", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20an%20employee,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Raimonde evaluates time and space limits among the holistic reasonableness factors rather than against fixed statutory caps.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-q4-raimonde-factors" }, { "id": "metrohealth-modified", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal", "citation": "MetroHealth Sys. v. Khandelwal, 2022-Ohio-77, 183 N.E.3d 590 (8th Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6205147/metrohealth-sys-v-khandelwal/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6205147/metrohealth-sys-v-khandelwal/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20evidence%20presented%20at,protect%20MetroHealth%E2%80%99s%20legitimate%20business%20interests.", "proposition": "MetroHealth shows an Ohio court narrowing an overbroad covenant to what is necessary to protect the employer's interests rather than voiding it.", "verbatimQuote": "In short, evidence presented at the hearing supported the trial court’s finding that the 2015 noncompete agreement was more restrictive than necessary but that it could be modified to protect MetroHealth’s legitimate business interests.", "date": "2022-01-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-metrohealth-modified" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will Ohio courts reform an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will an Ohio court reform or refuse to enforce an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "It depends. Raimonde abandoned strict blue-penciling and lets Ohio courts enforce an overbroad covenant only to the extent reasonable, but reformation is discretionary — a court may instead refuse to rewrite an abusively broad covenant.", "sources": [ { "id": "raimonde-reformation", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=Courts%20are%20empowered%20to%20modify,agreements%20to%20achieve%20such%20results.", "proposition": "Raimonde rejected strict blue-penciling and empowers Ohio courts to modify or amend an employment agreement to reach a reasonable, enforceable restraint.", "verbatimQuote": "Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve such results.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-raimonde-reformation" }, { "id": "kross-discretionary", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio, LLC", "citation": "Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio, LLC, 2024-Ohio-592, 236 N.E.3d 453 (1st Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9475789/kross-acquisition-co-llc-v-groundworks-ohio-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9475789/kross-acquisition-co-llc-v-groundworks-ohio-llc/#:~:text=We%20agree%20that%20it%20is,for%20an%20abuse%20of%20discretion.", "proposition": "Kross holds that modifying a non-compete is within the trial court's discretion, so a court may decline to reform an abusively overbroad covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "We agree that it is within a trial court’s discretion to modify a noncompetition agreement, and so we review its decision not to modify such an agreement for an abuse of discretion.", "date": "2024-02-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-kross-discretionary" }, { "id": "cintas-fee-shift", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Cintas Corp. v. Perry", "citation": "Cintas Corp. v. Perry, 517 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1462207/cintas-corporation-v-perry/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1462207/cintas-corporation-v-perry/#:~:text=The%20district%20court%20correctly%20concluded,costs%20under%20the%20employment%20agreement.", "proposition": "Cintas, applying Ohio law, held the former employee was entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the employer's own fee-shifting clause after the covenant failed.", "verbatimQuote": "The district court correctly concluded Perry was entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation costs under the employment agreement.", "date": "2008-02-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-cintas-fee-shift" } ] }, { "slug": "successor-enforcement", "label": "Can a buyer or successor enforce the covenant?", "heading": "Can a successor company enforce a non-compete after a merger in Ohio?", "answerText": "Yes, after a statutory merger. In Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the surviving company may enforce non-competes the absorbed company's employees signed, as if it had stepped into the original employer's shoes — provided the covenant is reasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "acordia-successor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel", "citation": "Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, 133 Ohio St. 3d 356, 2012-Ohio-4648, 978 N.E.2d 823.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2690659/acordia-of-ohio-llc-v-fishel/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2690659/acordia-of-ohio-llc-v-fishel/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20the%20L.L.C.,the%20circumstances%20of%20this%20case.", "proposition": "Acordia (on reconsideration) holds that a company surviving a statutory merger may enforce the absorbed company's non-competes as if it were the original contracting party, if the covenants are reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "We hold that the L.L.C. may enforce the noncompete agreements as if it had stepped into the shoes of the original contracting companies, provided that the noncompete agreements are reasonable under the circumstances of this case.", "date": "2012-10-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-acordia-successor" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does Ohio toll a non-compete during litigation?", "heading": "Does an Ohio non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?", "answerText": "It can. Ohio appellate courts have held that a non-compete may not expire while its enforceability is being litigated, so the restricted period can be effectively extended until the case is resolved.", "sources": [ { "id": "homan-tolling", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Homan, Inc. v. A1 AG Services, L.L.C.", "citation": "Homan, Inc. v. A1 AG Servs., L.L.C., 175 Ohio App. 3d 51, 2008-Ohio-277, 885 N.E.2d 253 (3d Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3953241/homan-inc-v-a1-ag-services-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3953241/homan-inc-v-a1-ag-services-llc/#:~:text=The%20Sixth%20Appellate%20District%20has,that%20contract%20is%20being%20litigated.", "proposition": "Homan adopts the rule that an Ohio non-compete may not expire while the enforceability of the contract is being litigated, effectively tolling the restricted period.", "verbatimQuote": "The Sixth Appellate District has held that a covenant not to compete may not expire while the enforceability of that contract is being litigated.", "date": "2008-01-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-homan-tolling" }, { "id": "q7-raimonde-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20an%20employee,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Raimonde's reasonableness standard governs any extension of the restricted period, so an open-ended tolling or extension term must still be reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-q7-raimonde-reasonableness" } ] }, { "slug": "industry-specific-limits", "label": "Which Ohio workers have special limits?", "heading": "Which Ohio workers face special non-compete treatment?", "answerText": "Physicians are the established category receiving special scrutiny. Ohio enforces their covenants but tests them closely under the public-injury prong, and a pending bill would add statutory limits for certain nonprofit-hospital clinicians.", "sources": [ { "id": "metrohealth-physician-standard", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal", "citation": "MetroHealth Sys. v. Khandelwal, 2022-Ohio-77, 183 N.E.3d 590 (8th Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6205147/metrohealth-sys-v-khandelwal/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6205147/metrohealth-sys-v-khandelwal/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20a%20physician%2Demployee,the%20people%20in%20the%20community.", "proposition": "MetroHealth applies the physician-covenant public-interest rule (quoting Ohio Urology and Williams): such a covenant is unreasonable where it imposes undue hardship and injures the public because the physician's services are vital to the community.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining a physician-employee from competing with his employer upon termination of employment is unreasonable where it imposes undue hardship on the physician and is injurious to the public, the physician’s services are vital to the health, care and treatment of the public, and the demand for his medical expertise is critical to the people in the community.", "date": "2022-01-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-metrohealth-physician-standard" }, { "id": "williams-public-injury", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Williams v. Hobbs", "citation": "Williams v. Hobbs, 9 Ohio App. 3d 331, 460 N.E.2d 287 (10th Dist. 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4007467/williams-v-hobbs/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4007467/williams-v-hobbs/#:~:text=The%20covenant%20imposes%20an%20undue,is%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Williams affirmed findings that a physician's services were vital to the public and that the covenant was injurious to the public, illustrating the public-injury prong in medicine.", "verbatimQuote": "The covenant imposes an undue hardship on the plaintiff, and also, it is injurious to the public.", "date": "1983-04-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-williams-public-injury" }, { "id": "sb301-healthcare-cap", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ohio S.B. 301 (136th General Assembly)", "citation": "S.B. 301, 136th Gen. Assemb. (Ohio 2025).", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb301", "proposition": "S.B. 301, a pending bill, would allow a nonprofit hospital to impose only a limited post-employment restriction on covered clinicians — no more than six months and within a fifteen-mile radius.", "verbatimQuote": "the employee will refrain, for a period not to exceed six months, from obtaining employment within a radius of fifteen miles of the physical location where the employee was employed with the hospital.", "date": "2025-10-21", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-sb301-healthcare-cap" } ] }, { "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay", "label": "Did the FTC rule change Ohio law?", "heading": "Did the FTC's federal non-compete rule change Ohio 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 Ohio non-competes remain governed by Ohio common law.", "sources": [ { "id": "ryan-ftc-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 set the FTC Non-Compete Rule aside with nationwide effect so that it would not be enforced or 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/ohio#src-ryan-ftc-set-aside" }, { "id": "ryan-ftc-authority", "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 held that the FTC lacked statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule 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/ohio#src-ryan-ftc-authority" } ] }, { "slug": "pending-reform", "label": "What reform efforts should employers watch?", "heading": "What Ohio non-compete reform efforts should employers watch?", "answerText": "None is law yet. The headline proposal, Senate Bill 11, would broadly prohibit employer non-competes, but it remains in committee and would apply only prospectively if enacted.", "sources": [ { "id": "sb11-prohibition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ohio S.B. 11 (136th General Assembly)", "citation": "S.B. 11, 136th Gen. Assemb. (Ohio 2025).", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb11", "proposition": "S.B. 11, a pending bill, would prohibit an employer from entering into, presenting, or enforcing an agreement that prevents a worker from taking other work or operating a business after employment ends.", "verbatimQuote": "Beginning on the effective date of this section, no employer shall enter into, attempt to enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of hire, or attempt to enforce an agreement, or part of an agreement, that prohibits the worker from, penalizes the worker for, or functions to prevent the worker from seeking or accepting work with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the relationship between the employer and worker, including any of the following:", "date": "2025-01-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-sb11-prohibition" }, { "id": "sb11-prospective", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ohio S.B. 11 (136th General Assembly)", "citation": "S.B. 11, 136th Gen. Assemb. (Ohio 2025).", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb11", "proposition": "S.B. 11 would apply only prospectively, voiding agreements entered into, modified, or extended on or after its effective date rather than existing covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "An agreement, or part of an agreement, between an employer and worker entered into, modified, or extended on or after the effective date of this section that is prohibited under division (A) of this section is void.", "date": "2025-01-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-sb11-prospective" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "Are employee non-solicits judged differently?", "heading": "How does Ohio treat employee (anti-raiding) non-solicits?", "answerText": "Ohio judges a nonsolicitation covenant — including one barring solicitation of a former employer's employees — under the same Raimonde reasonableness test it applies to non-competes. We found no Ohio decision squarely holding an employee anti-raiding clause reasonable, but the test is the same.", "sources": [ { "id": "uz-reasonable-extent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "UZ Engineered Products Co. v. Midwest Motor Supply Co.", "citation": "UZ Engineered Prods. Co. v. Midwest Motor Supply Co., No. 01AP-551, 2001-Ohio-8779 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist.).", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2001/2001-Ohio-8779.pdf", "proposition": "UZ Engineered applies the Raimonde reasonableness test — covenants are enforced only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests — to a covenant package that included a bar on soliciting the employer's other employees.", "verbatimQuote": "Covenants not to compete will be enforced only to the extent that the restrictions imposed on an employee are reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio#src-uz-reasonable-extent" } ] } ] } }