{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "tennessee",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in Tennessee",
      "description": "Tennessee enforces non-competes that are reasonable and protect a legitimate business interest, and a 2026 statute effective July 1, 2026 adds rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions and voids non-competes against employees earning under $70,000 a year.",
      "state": "Tennessee",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "Tennessee enforces a non-compete that is reasonable and protects a legitimate business interest; a 2026 statute effective July 1, 2026 will void covenants against employees earning under $70,000 and add rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions.",
        "keyLaw": "common law (Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984)); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-1-210, 50-1-211 (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934, eff. July 1, 2026)",
        "exceptions": "Coming July 1, 2026 — $70,000 pay-threshold ban; health-care-provider safe harbor (§ 63-1-148; emergency-medicine physicians excluded, covenants void under Udom); sale-of-business longer presumption; non-solicits/NDAs preserved",
        "courtNarrowing": "rewrite",
        "appliesToContractors": "yes",
        "extendedForBreach": "Open question — 2026 statute silent",
        "maxLength": "Rebuttable presumptions: 2 yrs employee/contractor; 3 yrs distributor; 5 yrs+ seller; health-care safe harbor 2 yrs",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "$70,000 from July 1, 2026",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Seller covenants get 5-year/payout presumption vs 2 years for employees",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Preserved by 2026 statute",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Preserved by 2026 statute"
      },
      "about": [
        "Tennessee non-compete agreements",
        "Tennessee restrictive covenants",
        "Tennessee non-compete reasonableness test",
        "Tennessee non-compete $70,000 income threshold",
        "Tenn. Code Ann. 50-1-210 rebuttable time presumptions",
        "Tenn. Code Ann. 50-1-211 low-wage non-compete ban",
        "2026 Tennessee Public Chapter 934 covenants not to compete",
        "Tennessee physician and healthcare non-compete Tenn. Code Ann. 63-1-148",
        "Tennessee covenant reformation rule of reasonableness",
        "Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act non-compete"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-tennessee"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "Sometimes. Tennessee enforces a non-compete that is reasonable and protects a legitimate business interest, but it treats the covenant as a disfavored restraint of trade. A new statute effective July 1, 2026 adds rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions and makes a non-compete void against any employee earning less than $70,000 a year.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hasty-disfavored",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/#:~:text=They%20are%20not%2C%20however%2C%20invalid,reasonable%20under%20the%20particular%20circumstances.",
            "proposition": "Hasty supports the rule that Tennessee non-competes are disfavored as restraints of trade but enforceable when reasonable under the circumstances.",
            "verbatimQuote": "They are not, however, invalid per se and may be enforced, provided, they are reasonable under the particular circumstances.",
            "date": "1984-05-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-hasty-disfavored"
          },
          {
            "id": "s47-25-101-restraint",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-101",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-101 (2024 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 776).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc0776.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 47-25-101 supports the point that Tennessee public policy disfavors restraints of trade, the backdrop for the common-law treatment of non-competes.",
            "verbatimQuote": "All arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations made with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen, full and free competition in trade or commerce affecting this state, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations designed or which tend to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer or the consumer of any product or service in trade or commerce affecting this state, are declared to be against public policy, unlawful, and void.",
            "date": "2024-04-23",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s47-25-101-restraint"
          },
          {
            "id": "s50-1-211-threshold",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(a) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "New Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211 supports the rule that, effective July 1, 2026, a non-compete is void and unenforceable against an employee earning less than $70,000 annually.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding a law to the contrary, an employer shall not require, request, or enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s50-1-211-threshold"
          },
          {
            "id": "s50-1-210-presumptions",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934, § 3.",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "New Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210 supports the rule that, effective July 1, 2026, courts apply rebuttable presumptions to the reasonableness in time of a restrictive covenant, applicable to agreements entered into, renewed, or amended on or after that date.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This act takes effect July 1, 2026, the public welfare requiring it, and applies to proceedings occurring and agreements entering into, renewed, or amended, on or after that date.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s50-1-210-presumptions"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "reasonableness-test",
        "label": "What makes a non-compete reasonable?",
        "heading": "What makes a non-compete reasonable in Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "A protectable business interest plus terms no broader than needed to protect it. Tennessee courts ask whether the time and territory of the covenant are greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interest, weighing the consideration given, the danger to the employer without the covenant, the hardship to the employee, and the public interest.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "allright-ultimate-question",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry",
            "citation": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 409 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tenn. 1966).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20the%20foregoing%2C%20the,business%20interest%20of%20the%20complainant.",
            "proposition": "Allright supports the rule that the ultimate reasonableness question is whether the time and territorial limits are greater than necessary to protect the employer's business interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Based upon the foregoing, the ultimate question presented in the case sub judice appears to be whether or not the time and territorial limits of the noncompetition agreement are greater than is required to protect the business interest of the complainant.",
            "date": "1966-11-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-allright-ultimate-question"
          },
          {
            "id": "allright-factors",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry",
            "citation": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 409 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tenn. 1966).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/#:~:text=Among%20these%20are%3A%20the%20consideration,be%20inimical%20to%20public%20interest.",
            "proposition": "Allright supports the list of factors Tennessee courts weigh: consideration, threatened danger to the employer, economic hardship to the employee, and the public interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Among these are: the consideration supporting the agreements; the threatened danger to the employer in the absence of such an agreement; the economic hardship imposed on the employee by such a covenant; and whether or not such a covenant should be inimical to public interest.",
            "date": "1966-11-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-allright-factors"
          },
          {
            "id": "hasty-no-ordinary-competition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/#:~:text=An%20employer%2C%20however%2C%20cannot%20by%20contract%20restrain%20ordinary%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Hasty supports the rule that an employer cannot use a covenant to restrain ordinary competition; only a special protectable interest will support a non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer, however, cannot by contract restrain ordinary competition.",
            "date": "1984-05-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-hasty-no-ordinary-competition"
          },
          {
            "id": "hasty-special-facts",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/#:~:text=In%20order%20for%20an%20employer,over%20and%20above%20ordinary%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Hasty supports the requirement of special facts over and above ordinary competition before an employer is entitled to non-compete protection.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In order for an employer to be entitled to protection, there must be special facts present over and above ordinary competition.",
            "date": "1984-05-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-hasty-special-facts"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "income-threshold",
        "label": "What about lower-paid employees?",
        "heading": "Can a Tennessee employer use a non-compete against an employee earning under $70,000?",
        "answerText": "No, for enforcement proceedings occurring on or after July 1, 2026 and for agreements entered into, renewed, or amended on or after that date. New Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211 prohibits an employer from requiring, requesting, or enforcing a non-compete against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than $70,000, and a non-compete signed in violation is void as a matter of public policy.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "threshold-rule",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(a) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-211(a) supports the prohibition on requiring, requesting, or enforcing a non-compete against an employee earning less than $70,000 annually.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding a law to the contrary, an employer shall not require, request, or enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-threshold-rule"
          },
          {
            "id": "threshold-void",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(c) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-211(c) supports the rule that a non-compete executed in violation of the threshold is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A noncompete agreement executed in violation of this section is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-threshold-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "threshold-hourly",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(b)(2) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-211(b) supports the broad definition of annualized compensation and the hourly-employee calculation of rate times forty times fifty-two.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Annualized compensation for an hourly employee must be calculated by multiplying the employee's hourly rate by forty (40) and multiplying the product by fifty-two (52).",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-threshold-hourly"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "duration-limits",
        "label": "How long can a non-compete last?",
        "heading": "How long can a Tennessee non-compete last?",
        "answerText": "For agreements governed by the 2026 statute, a court presumes a restraint is unreasonable in time if it runs longer than the period set for the relevant relationship: two years for a former employee or independent contractor, three years for a distributor, dealer, franchisee, lessee, or licensee, and the longer of five years or the payout period for the seller of a business.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "time-presumption-rule",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(a) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(a) supports the rule that a court applies rebuttable presumptions and presumes a time restraint longer than the applicable period is unreasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In determining the reasonableness in time of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced after the termination of an employment or business relationship, a court shall apply the rebuttable presumptions established in this section. A court shall presume that a time restraint greater than the applicable restraint described in subdivision (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) is unreasonable.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-time-presumption-rule"
          },
          {
            "id": "time-employee-2yr",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(b)(1) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(b)(1) supports the two-year presumptively-reasonable period for a covenant enforced against a former employee or independent contractor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court shall presume to be reasonable in time a restraint sought to be enforced against a former employee or independent contractor that: (A) Is two (2) years or less in duration, measured from the date the employment or business relationship terminates; and",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-time-employee-2yr"
          },
          {
            "id": "time-distributor-3yr",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(b)(2) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(b)(2) supports the three-year presumptively-reasonable period for a covenant enforced against a distributor, dealer, franchisee, lessee, or licensee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court shall presume to be reasonable in time a restraint three (3) years or less in duration, measured from the date of termination of the business relationship in the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a current or former distributor, dealer, franchisee, lessee of real or personal property, or licensee of a trademark, trade dress, or service mark, and not associated with the sale of all or a material part of:",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-time-distributor-3yr"
          },
          {
            "id": "time-seller-5yr",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(b)(3) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(b)(3) supports the longer presumptively-reasonable period for the seller of a business: the greater of five years or the period during which sale payments are made.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court shall presume to be reasonable in time a restraint that is the longer of five (5) years or less, or a period equal to the time during which payments are made to the owner or seller, in the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against the owner or seller of all or a material part of:",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-time-seller-5yr"
          },
          {
            "id": "allright-ultimate-question-time",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry",
            "citation": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 409 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tenn. 1966).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20the%20foregoing%2C%20the,business%20interest%20of%20the%20complainant.",
            "proposition": "Allright supports the point that geographic reasonableness remains a common-law question even where the statute addresses time.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Based upon the foregoing, the ultimate question presented in the case sub judice appears to be whether or not the time and territorial limits of the noncompetition agreement are greater than is required to protect the business interest of the complainant.",
            "date": "1966-11-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-allright-ultimate-question-time"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "consideration",
        "label": "Does continued employment count as consideration?",
        "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Tennessee non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Yes, when the employment actually continues. Under Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram, a covenant an existing employee signs is supported by consideration where the employee then remains employed for an appreciable period, so a non-compete signed after hire does not fail for lack of fresh consideration.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "central-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram",
            "citation": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram, 678 S.W.2d 28, 35 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20because%20of,covenant%20is%20binding%20against%20them.",
            "proposition": "Central Adjustment Bureau supports the rule that continued employment supplies consideration for a covenant signed after hire, here making the covenants binding because of the length of each employee's continued employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We find that because of the length of employment of each defendant, the covenant is binding against them.",
            "date": "1984-09-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-central-consideration"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will a court narrow an overbroad covenant?",
        "heading": "Will a Tennessee court narrow or reform an overbroad non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Often yes, but not always. Tennessee follows the rule of reasonableness rather than the strict blue-pencil rule, so a court may modify an unreasonable covenant to make it reasonable instead of striking it — but it can refuse and void the covenant entirely when the employer drafted it in a deliberately unreasonable or oppressive way.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "central-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram",
            "citation": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram, 678 S.W.2d 28, 33 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20trend%2C%20therefore%2C,of%20a%20rule%20of%20reasonableness.",
            "proposition": "Central Adjustment Bureau supports Tennessee's adoption of the rule of reasonableness, abandoning the strict blue-pencil rule so courts may enforce a covenant to the extent reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The most recent trend, therefore, has been to abandon the \"blue pencil\" rule in favor of a rule of reasonableness.",
            "date": "1984-09-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-central-reasonableness"
          },
          {
            "id": "central-oppressive",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram",
            "citation": "Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram, 678 S.W.2d 28, 33 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437065/central-adjustment-bureau-inc-v-ingram/#:~:text=If%20there%20is%20credible%20evidence,then%20the%20covenant%20is%20invalid.",
            "proposition": "Central Adjustment Bureau supports the limit on reformation: a deliberately unreasonable and oppressive covenant is invalid rather than reformed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If there is credible evidence to sustain a finding that a contract is deliberately unreasonable and oppressive, then the covenant is invalid.",
            "date": "1984-09-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-central-oppressive"
          },
          {
            "id": "vantage-modify",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross",
            "citation": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/#:~:text=Hence%2C%20a%20court%20may%20modify,as%20to%20render%20it%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "Vantage supports reformation in practice: a court may modify an unreasonable covenant, and here it narrowed the territory to the customer locations where the employee actually performed services.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Hence, a court may modify an unreasonable covenant so as to render it reasonable.",
            "date": "1999-10-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-vantage-modify"
          },
          {
            "id": "columbus-refused",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Columbus Medical Services, LLC v. Thomas",
            "citation": "Columbus Medical Services, LLC v. Thomas, 308 S.W.3d 368, 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1050674/columbus-medical-services-llc-v-thomas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1050674/columbus-medical-services-llc-v-thomas/#:~:text=We%20reverse%2C%20concluding%20that%2C%20while,impact%20on%20the%20public%20interest.",
            "proposition": "Columbus Medical supports the point that a court may refuse to enforce even a covenant backed by a legitimate interest when employee hardship and the public interest outweigh it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We reverse, concluding that, while the plaintiff agency had a legitimate protectable business interest, the non-compete covenants are not enforceable in light of the hardship to the defendant therapists and the adverse impact on the public interest.",
            "date": "2009-08-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-columbus-refused"
          },
          {
            "id": "s50-1-210-modify",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(d) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(d) supports the statutory authorization for a court to modify a governed restrictive covenant to render it reasonable and enforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court may modify a restrictive covenant governed by this section to render it reasonable and enforceable.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s50-1-210-modify"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "health-care-providers",
        "label": "What about physicians and healthcare providers?",
        "heading": "Are non-competes enforceable against Tennessee physicians and healthcare providers?",
        "answerText": "Yes, within statutory limits. A healthcare-provider covenant is deemed reasonable if it is in writing, runs two years or less, and stays within the greater of a 10-mile radius or the provider's county (or a facility-based limit). Emergency-medicine physicians fall outside that statutory authorization, so their covenants remain void under Udom.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "s63-1-148-deemed-reasonable",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148(a).",
            "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:563H-T9F0-R03M-50DW-00008-00",
            "proposition": "Section 63-1-148(a) supports the safe harbor under which a healthcare-provider covenant is deemed reasonable if in writing, two years or less, and within the greater of a 10-mile radius or the county (or a facility-based limit).",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restriction on the right of an employed or contracted healthcare provider to practice the healthcare provider's profession upon termination or conclusion of the employment or contractual relationship shall be deemed reasonable if: (1) The restriction is set forth in an employment agreement or other written document signed by the healthcare provider and the employing or contracting entity; and (2) The duration of the restriction is two (2) years or less and either: (A) The maximum allowable geographic restriction is the greater of: (i) A ten-mile radius from the primary practice site of the healthcare provider while employed or contracted; or (ii) The county in which the primary practice of the healthcare provider while employed or contracted is located;",
            "date": "2011-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s63-1-148-deemed-reasonable"
          },
          {
            "id": "s63-1-148-emergency",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148(d).",
            "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:563H-T9F0-R03M-50DW-00008-00",
            "proposition": "Section 63-1-148(d) supports the rule that the healthcare safe harbor does not apply to emergency-medicine physicians, who cannot be subject to a non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This section shall not apply to physicians who specialize in the practice of emergency medicine.",
            "date": "2011-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s63-1-148-emergency"
          },
          {
            "id": "s63-1-148-sale",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148(b).",
            "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:563H-T9F0-R03M-50DW-00008-00",
            "proposition": "Section 63-1-148(b) supports the rebuttable presumption that the duration and area of a covenant tied to the purchase or sale of a provider's practice are reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the duration and area of restriction agreed upon by the parties in such an agreement are reasonable.",
            "date": "2011-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s63-1-148-sale"
          },
          {
            "id": "s63-1-148-scope",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148(c).",
            "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:563H-T9F0-R03M-50DW-00008-00",
            "proposition": "Section 63-1-148(c) supports the range of covered healthcare providers, defined by license under the listed chapters of Title 63.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This section shall apply to healthcare providers licensed under chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 of this title.",
            "date": "2011-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s63-1-148-scope"
          },
          {
            "id": "udom-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom",
            "citation": "Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom, 166 S.W.3d 674, 684 (Tenn. 2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058272/murfreesboro-medical-clinic-pa-v-udom/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058272/murfreesboro-medical-clinic-pa-v-udom/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20except%20for,compete%20are%20unenforceable%20and%20void.",
            "proposition": "Udom supports the rule that, except where specifically allowed by statute, physician covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as against Tennessee public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We hold that except for those specifically prescribed by statute, physicians' covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void.",
            "date": "2005-06-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-udom-void"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "non-solicitation-confidentiality",
        "label": "Are non-solicits and NDAs still allowed?",
        "heading": "Are customer non-solicits, employee non-solicits, and confidentiality agreements still allowed in Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "Yes. The 2026 statute that regulates non-competes expressly preserves an employer's ability to enforce a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement, a customer non-solicitation agreement, and an employee non-solicitation agreement.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "s50-1-210-carveouts",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(c) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(c) supports the carve-out preserving confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements, customer non-solicitation agreements, and employee non-solicitation agreements.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This section does not prohibit an employer from enforcing: (1) A confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement; (2) A client or customer nonsolicitation agreement; or (3) An employee nonsolicitation agreement.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-s50-1-210-carveouts"
          },
          {
            "id": "threshold-rule-nonsolicit",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(a) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-211(a) supports the point that the income-threshold bar applies to noncompete agreements specifically, so a covenant drafted as a de facto non-compete carries the same voidness risk.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding a law to the contrary, an employer shall not require, request, or enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-threshold-rule-nonsolicit"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "trade-secrets",
        "label": "How does trade-secret law interact?",
        "heading": "How does the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act interact with non-competes?",
        "answerText": "It runs alongside them. The Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act displaces overlapping tort remedies for trade-secret misappropriation but expressly preserves contractual remedies, and it confirms that a confidentiality duty is not void merely for lacking a time or geographic limit.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tutsa-contractual",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708(b)(1).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/101/pub/pc647.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 47-25-1708 supports the rule that TUTSA preserves contractual remedies and that a contractual secrecy duty is not void merely for lacking a durational or geographic limit.",
            "verbatimQuote": "a contractual duty to maintain secrecy or limit use of a trade secret shall not be deemed to be void or unenforceable solely for lack of durational or geographical limitation on the duty",
            "date": "2000-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-tutsa-contractual"
          },
          {
            "id": "tutsa-exemplary",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1704",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1704(b).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/101/pub/pc647.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 47-25-1704 supports the availability of exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a).",
            "date": "2000-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-tutsa-exemplary"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "sale-of-business",
        "label": "Are sale-of-business covenants different?",
        "heading": "Are sale-of-business non-competes treated differently in Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "Yes, more generously. For a covenant enforced against the owner or seller of a business, the 2026 statute presumes a restraint reasonable in time for the longer of five years or the period during which sale payments are made — well beyond the two-year presumption for ordinary employees.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "sale-seller-5yr",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(b)(3) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(b)(3) supports the longer presumptively-reasonable period for a covenant against the owner or seller of a business: the greater of five years or the payout period.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court shall presume to be reasonable in time a restraint that is the longer of five (5) years or less, or a period equal to the time during which payments are made to the owner or seller, in the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against the owner or seller of all or a material part of:",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-sale-seller-5yr"
          },
          {
            "id": "sale-healthcare",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148(b).",
            "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:563H-T9F0-R03M-50DW-00008-00",
            "proposition": "Section 63-1-148(b) supports the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for a covenant tied to the purchase or sale of a healthcare provider's practice.",
            "verbatimQuote": "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the duration and area of restriction agreed upon by the parties in such an agreement are reasonable.",
            "date": "2011-01-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-sale-healthcare"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does a non-compete toll during breach?",
        "heading": "Does a Tennessee non-compete toll or extend during a breach or while litigation is pending?",
        "answerText": "This is an open question in Tennessee. No Tennessee statute or appellate decision squarely endorses automatically tolling or extending the restricted period while the employee is in breach or while enforcement litigation is pending, and the 2026 statute does not address tolling.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tolling-statute-silent",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-210(b)(1) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-210(b)(1) supports the point that the statutory time period runs from the date the relationship terminates and the statute is silent on tolling, so an extension-on-breach theory has no clear statutory footing.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court shall presume to be reasonable in time a restraint sought to be enforced against a former employee or independent contractor that: (A) Is two (2) years or less in duration, measured from the date the employment or business relationship terminates; and",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-tolling-statute-silent"
          },
          {
            "id": "tolling-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross",
            "citation": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/#:~:text=Hence%2C%20a%20court%20may%20modify,as%20to%20render%20it%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "Vantage supports the point that a Tennessee court tests a covenant's terms for reasonableness and may modify an unreasonable one, which constrains any extension that lengthens the effective restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Hence, a court may modify an unreasonable covenant so as to render it reasonable.",
            "date": "1999-10-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-tolling-reasonableness"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "choice-of-law",
        "label": "Can another state's law govern?",
        "heading": "Can another state's law or court govern a Tennessee worker's non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Sometimes, if the choice is genuine. A Tennessee court honors a contractual choice of another state's law only when certain requirements are met, beginning with the requirement that the choice-of-law provision be executed in good faith.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "vantage-choice-intent",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross",
            "citation": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/#:~:text=If%20the%20parties%20manifest%20an,provided%20certain%20requirements%20are%20met.",
            "proposition": "Vantage supports the rule that a contractual intent to apply another jurisdiction's law will be honored only when certain requirements are met.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the parties manifest an intent to instead apply the laws of another jurisdiction, then that intent will be honored provided certain requirements are met.",
            "date": "1999-10-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-vantage-choice-intent"
          },
          {
            "id": "vantage-good-faith",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross",
            "citation": "Vantage Technology, LLC v. Cross, 17 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561156/vantage-technology-llc-v-cross/#:~:text=The%20choice%20of%20law%20provision,be%20executed%20in%20good%20faith.",
            "proposition": "Vantage supports the requirement that a choice-of-law provision be executed in good faith for a Tennessee court to honor it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The choice of law provision must be executed in good faith.",
            "date": "1999-10-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-vantage-good-faith"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "recent-developments",
        "label": "What recent changes should employers watch?",
        "heading": "What are the key recent developments in Tennessee non-compete law?",
        "answerText": "The headline change is the 2026 statute that, effective July 1, 2026, voids non-competes for employees earning under $70,000 and sets rebuttable time presumptions for the rest.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "dev-enacted",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Public Chapter 934 supports the enactment of new non-compete rules amending Titles 50, 63, and 68 (House Bill 1034, substituted for Senate Bill 995).",
            "verbatimQuote": "AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 50; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to covenants not to compete.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-dev-enacted"
          },
          {
            "id": "dev-effective",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934, § 3.",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 3 supports the July 1, 2026 effective date and its application to proceedings occurring and to agreements entered into, renewed, or amended on or after that date.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This act takes effect July 1, 2026, the public welfare requiring it, and applies to proceedings occurring and agreements entering into, renewed, or amended, on or after that date.",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-dev-effective"
          },
          {
            "id": "dev-threshold",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934 (HB 1034)",
            "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211(a) (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934) (eff. July 1, 2026).",
            "url": "https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0934.pdf",
            "proposition": "Section 50-1-211(a) supports the new bar on non-competes for employees earning less than $70,000 annually that takes effect with the act.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding a law to the contrary, an employer shall not require, request, or enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).",
            "date": "2026-05-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee#src-dev-threshold"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}