Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
Wyoming voids employee non-competes restricting compensation for labor in contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, unless a statutory exception applies. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The statute covers covenants restricting compensation for skilled or unskilled labor . State-specific law-firm commentary treats the 2025 law as a broad restriction rather than a narrow drafting adjustment. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 4 sources in this group.
The statute does not erase every Wyoming non-compete. Two categories fall outside the void and remain governed by Wyoming common law and its demanding reasonableness baseline: agreements entered into before July 1, 2025, which the act does not alter, and non-compete covenants drafted to fit a statutory exception. Fitting an exception keeps a non-compete out of the statutory void but does not make it automatically enforceable — such a covenant must still satisfy the common-law reasonableness elements, and Wyoming courts strictly construe restraints against the employer. The next question covers what law still governs those covenants; the pre-2025 cohort also shrinks as those agreements age out.
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) supports the rule that most labor non-competes are void unless an enumerated exception applies.
(a) Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void. This subsection shall not apply to: (i) Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business; (ii) Any covenant not to compete to the extent the covenant provides for the protection of trade secrets as defined by W.S. 6-3-501(a)(xi); (iii) Any contractual provision providing for the recovery of all or a portion of the expense of relocating, educating and training an employee as follows: (A) Recovery of not more than one hundred percent (100%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two (2) years;
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025) (SF 107, Enrolled Act No. 87).
Ogletree describes a broad employee non-compete ban with limited exceptions.
Wyoming enacted legislation that will void noncompete agreements with employees with limited exceptions.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Faegre Drinker supports the statement that the statutory ban has four carveouts.
The law prohibits any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor unless it falls under one of four statutory exceptions
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Littler supports treating routine post-employment non-competes as generally void after the effective date unless an exception applies.
New Wyoming law voids most non-compete agreements.
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the broad shift from Wyoming's pre-statute practice.
Wyoming's sweeping prohibition marks a clear departure from the state's previous permissive approach to non-compete agreements.
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
SF 107 § 2(a) applies the act to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025.
This act shall apply to contracts entered into on and after July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, § 2(a) (Wyo. 2025).
SF 107 § 2(b) supports the prospective-only treatment of contracts entered into before July 1, 2025.
Nothing in this act shall be construed to alter, amend or impair any contract or agreement entered into before July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, § 2(b), 68th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2025).
Malave supports the traditional Wyoming common-law enforceability elements for non-competes.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Brown supports strict construction and the employer's burden to justify a restraint.
Contracts which hinder them from doing so are "strictly construed and rigidly scanned and are declared void unless necessary for the reasonable protection of the employer."
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
What law governs Wyoming non-compete covenants the 2025 statute does not void?
Wyoming common law governs them, applying the same demanding reasonableness baseline that predated the statute. Two cohorts fall outside the statutory void: agreements entered into before July 1, 2025, which the act does not alter, and non-compete covenants that fit a statutory exception.
Falling outside the statutory void does not make either cohort easy to enforce. Wyoming common law uses traditional enforceability elements: the covenant must be written, part of an employment contract, supported by reasonable consideration, reasonable in duration and geography, and not against public policy.
Wyoming cases also strictly construe non-competes and put the burden on the employer to prove special circumstances that make the restraint reasonably necessary. For a post-hire covenant, continued employment alone is not enough consideration. The pre-2025 cohort shrinks as those agreements age out. Among the statutory exceptions, the ones that operate as non-competes — such as the executive-and-management carve-out — remain subject to this same reasonableness analysis, while the capped repayment carve-out is an expense-recovery mechanism judged on the statutory schedule rather than the reasonableness test. A later question covers the four exceptions in detail, and a separate question covers whether a court will narrow an overbroad covenant.
No published Wyoming authority addresses tolling a non-compete during a breach. Wyoming strictly construes restrictive covenants and puts the burden on the employer to justify the restraint . A tolling provision adds duration that faces the same reasonableness scrutiny as the original term — without judicial willingness to trim — so the realistic downside is voiding the covenant, not narrowing it.
Sources for this answer
SF 107 § 2(b) supports the prospective-only treatment of contracts entered into before July 1, 2025.
Nothing in this act shall be construed to alter, amend or impair any contract or agreement entered into before July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, § 2(b), 68th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2025).
Malave supports the traditional Wyoming common-law enforceability elements for non-competes.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Brown supports strict construction and the employer's burden to justify a restraint.
Contracts which hinder them from doing so are "strictly construed and rigidly scanned and are declared void unless necessary for the reasonable protection of the employer."
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Brown supports the separate-consideration rule for post-hire Wyoming non-competes.
when an employer requests an existing employee sign a non-compete agreement, the employer must provide "separate contemporaneous consideration" for the new promise
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Does Wyoming require separate consideration for a non-compete signed after hire?
Yes, for any covenant that falls outside the 2025 statutory void. When an employer asks someone who is already employed to sign a non-compete, Wyoming common law requires separate, contemporaneous consideration for the new promise — continued at-will employment, by itself, is not enough.
This is a pure common-law rule, so it does not turn on the 2025 statute or any effective date. It governs the pre-2025 cohort and any post-2025 covenant drafted to fit a statutory exception, because neither cohort escapes Wyoming's demanding reasonableness baseline. The practical consequence is a drafting one: a non-compete presented after the start date should recite its own bargained-for consideration — a raise, a bonus, equity, a promotion, or access to confidential information tied to a new role — rather than rely on the worker simply keeping the job.
Wyoming courts also strictly construe restrictive covenants and put the burden on the employer to justify the restraint, so a covenant that fails the consideration requirement is unlikely to be rescued on review. This question covers consideration only; a separate question covers whether a court will narrow an otherwise overbroad covenant.
Sources for this answer
Brown supports the separate-consideration rule for post-hire Wyoming non-competes.
when an employer requests an existing employee sign a non-compete agreement, the employer must provide "separate contemporaneous consideration" for the new promise
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Brown supports strict construction and the employer's burden to justify a restraint.
Contracts which hinder them from doing so are "strictly construed and rigidly scanned and are declared void unless necessary for the reasonable protection of the employer."
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Does Wyoming's non-compete ban apply to independent contractors?
Likely yes under the dominant 2025 law-firm commentary, but that is still an interpretation rather than a Wyoming appellate holding.
The reason is the statutory phrase any person. State-specific law-firm commentary reads that wording broadly enough to reach independent contractors, not only W-2 employees. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. That same broad phrasing closely mirrors Colorado's void-for-compensation rule, which is why commentary points to Colorado as the analogue. See our companion note on whether Colorado employee non-competes are enforceable →
That is a strong drafting assumption for Wyoming templates, but a careful note should still say that Wyoming courts have not yet issued a controlling appellate decision on the contractor question.
Sources for this answer
The statute uses 'any person,' not only 'employee,' which supports the independent-contractor reading.
Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025).
Littler supports the reading that the Act can reach workers regardless of status.
The Act contains language broad enough to make most non-compete covenants with workers void regardless of a worker's status as an employee or an independent contractor
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Faegre Drinker supports the conclusion that 'any person' includes employees and independent contractors.
Given that the law applies this restriction to agreements with any "person," this bans noncompete agreements with both employees and independent contractors
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the comparison to Colorado-style language and the broad application to 'any person.'
any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Can a Wyoming court narrow an overbroad non-compete?
No. The Wyoming Supreme Court will not rewrite an overbroad covenant to bring it within the bounds of reason.
The court held that the entire agreement was void because the duration and geographic terms were unreasonable. That makes overbreadth more expensive in Wyoming than in states where courts may trim an unreasonable covenant down to an enforceable scope.
A Wyoming court is unlikely to rescue an overbroad covenant by narrowing it later. That risk applies both to legacy agreements and to new agreements drafted inside a statutory exception .
Where a covenant falls within a statutory exception and enforceability matters, enforceability is more likely when duration and geography are tied to specific business needs and the reasonableness analysis is documented at drafting time. Because a Wyoming court will void an overbroad covenant whole rather than trim it , the upside of an aggressive scope is small relative to the risk of losing the covenant entirely.
Sources for this answer
Hassler supports the rule against judicial narrowing and the consequence that the overbroad agreement was void.
Wyoming courts will no longer exceed the scope of their traditional authority in contract interpretation by redrafting noncompete agreements to bring them within the bounds of reason.
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.
Holland & Hart supports the practical employer-side warning that drafting overbreadth remains risky even inside exceptions.
Since a 2022 Wyoming Supreme Court decision, Wyoming courts are no longer authorized to revise an unreasonable covenant to make it reasonable.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
What non-compete restrictions are still allowed in Wyoming after July 1, 2025?
Wyoming excludes qualifying business-sale covenants, trade-secret protection to its statutory extent, tenure-capped relocation/education/training recovery, and executive/management personnel and their professional staff from the labor non-compete ban. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The four statutory carveouts are listed in Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a), the last of which is the carve-out for executive and management personnel . The repayment carveout is not a blank check; it permits recovery of at most 100% for service under two years, 66% for service from two to under three years, and 33% for service from three to under four years. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The trade-secret exception covers covenants only to the extent they protect information that meets Wyoming's statutory trade-secret definition. Enforceability is more likely when the contractual definition of protected information is tied to that statutory bar and each category is documented as meeting it, since how broadly Wyoming courts read the carveout remains an open question .
Fitting one of these categories keeps a covenant out of the statutory void, but it does not make the covenant automatically enforceable — an exception covenant that operates as a non-compete is still judged under the common-law reasonableness baseline: Wyoming’s established test requires writing, an employment contract, reasonable consideration, reasonable durational/geographic limitations, and consistency with public policy .
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(i)–(iii) supports the first three statutory carveouts — sale of a business, trade-secret protection, and capped expense recovery.
(a) Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void. This subsection shall not apply to: (i) Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business; (ii) Any covenant not to compete to the extent the covenant provides for the protection of trade secrets as defined by W.S. 6-3-501(a)(xi); (iii) Any contractual provision providing for the recovery of all or a portion of the expense of relocating, educating and training an employee as follows: (A) Recovery of not more than one hundred percent (100%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two (2) years;
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(i)–(iii) (2025).
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) supports the fourth statutory carveout for executive and management personnel and their professional staff.
(B) Recovery of not more than sixty-six percent (66%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between two (2) and less than three (3) years; (C) Recovery of not more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between three (3) and less than four (4) years. (iv) Executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) (2025).
Littler supports the caution that the practical breadth of the trade-secret exception remains uncertain.
How expansive the trade secret exception will turn out to be waits to be seen.
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Malave states Wyoming’s established common-law non-compete enforceability requirements.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Are customer non-solicitation agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
Unclear. The safer Wyoming-specific answer is not always valid or always void; it depends on whether the covenant functions like a prohibited non-compete.
Brownstein takes the employer-friendly view that customer non-solicitation covenants remain intact . Fisher Phillips warns that Wyoming courts still must decide whether customer non-solicits are covered covenants not to compete under the new text .
A narrow customer-relationship restriction carries less risk than language that prevents the person from earning compensation in a field, territory, or role. The closer the clause gets to a work ban, the more non-compete risk it carries .
Sources for this answer
Brownstein supports the employer-friendly view that non-solicitation and non-recruitment restrictions are not affected.
However, non-solicitation, non-recruitment and confidentiality restrictions remain unaffected.
See Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Wyoming Adopts Statutory Limits for Noncompetes (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the caution that customer non-solicits may need judicial classification under the new statute.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Are employee non-solicitation agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
Not clearly. Wyoming's statute does not create an express employee non-solicit exception.
Law-firm commentary says the omission leaves the issue unclear . Other law-firm commentary groups employee non-solicits with adjacent restraints that Wyoming courts may eventually have to classify .
The practical drafting approach is to treat employee non-solicits as unsettled if they work as a de facto restriction on the departing person's ability to perform skilled or unskilled labor.
Sources for this answer
Littler supports the point that the Act does not include an express non-solicit carveout and that the omission leaves uncertainty.
Noticeably absent are any express exceptions for non-solicit restrictions such as covenants prohibiting the solicitation of customers or the solicitation of other employees
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the broader caution for customer, employee, confidentiality, and anti-moonlighting provisions.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Are confidentiality agreements or NDAs enforceable if they function like a Wyoming non-compete?
Ordinary confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements are more likely to remain enforceable, but broad clauses that operate like a work restriction are riskier.
Brownstein says the statute does not affect nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements . Fisher Phillips warns that courts still may need to decide whether broad confidentiality provisions are really prohibited non-compete covenants under another name .
A confidentiality clause that protects confidential information carries less risk than one drafted to prevent someone from working in a role, industry, or geography. The broader the definition of protected information, the more the clause begins to look like a non-compete substitute .
Sources for this answer
Brownstein supports the more employer-friendly view that nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements are not affected by the statute.
However, non-solicitation, non-recruitment and confidentiality restrictions remain unaffected.
See Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Wyoming Adopts Statutory Limits for Noncompetes (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the caution that broad confidentiality provisions may be litigated as covered restraints.
What is not clear, however, is whether other common forms of restrictive covenants will likewise be interpreted to constitute "covenants not to compete."
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Can Wyoming employers bind executives or managers to non-competes under the statutory exception?
Wyoming excepts executive and management personnel and officers and employees constituting their professional staff from the labor non-compete ban, but the statute leaves those role terms undefined. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The statutory exception covers executive and management personnel. Law-firm commentary flags the undefined role terms and treats the scope of eligibility as an open question .
Commentary recommends focusing on actual job responsibilities rather than job titles; it does not establish a binding Wyoming test for which employees qualify .
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) supports the existence of the executive, management, and professional-staff exception.
(B) Recovery of not more than sixty-six percent (66%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between two (2) and less than three (3) years; (C) Recovery of not more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between three (3) and less than four (4) years. (iv) Executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iv) (2025).
Faegre Drinker supports the point that the terms are undefined and the exception's scope remains open.
The statute does not define the terms "executive and personnel management" or "professional staff," so which specific employees would qualify for this exemption is an open question
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Fisher Phillips recommends assessing actual job responsibilities rather than job titles.
This analysis should focus on actual job responsibilities – not just job titles.
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Can a Wyoming non-compete prevent a physician from practicing medicine?
For physician-to-physician agreements covered by the statutory text, no. Wyoming separately voids a physician non-compete that restricts the right to practice medicine after termination.
The statute also allows a departing physician to share continuing practice and new professional contact information with rare-disorder patients, without liability to the prior counterparty .
The harder question is the phrase between physicians. Commentary flags that wording as an open statutory question for contracts with hospitals or other non-physician entities. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. The careful statement is that Wyoming clearly voids physician-to-physician practice restraints and leaves the outer scope of physician-employer application less certain.
Wyoming voids physician-to-physician practice restraints and protects the departing physician's right to share continuing-practice information with rare-disorder patients . Mirroring that statutory protection in the clause itself reduces risk, and relying on the broader exec/management exception for physicians employed by non-physician entities is riskier — the between physicians language leaves that scope unsettled .
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)–(c) supports the physician practice restriction rule and the rare-disorder patient contact rule.
Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement between physicians that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b)–(c) (2025).
The phrase "between physicians" supports the open statutory question for hospital or non-physician-entity contracts.
Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement between physicians
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(b) (2025).
Littler supports the caution that the "between physicians" phrase may not cover contracts between physicians and hospitals.
The language in this subparagraph suggests that the restriction only intends to limit non-compete provisions in contracts entered into "between physicians,"
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Holland & Hart supports the same physician open-question caution from a Wyoming-focused employer perspective.
This language suggests that the law intends to invalidate covenants not to compete entered into between physicians who are members of or employed by a medical practice owned by physicians, and not those contracts with hospitals or other types of entities.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Are anti-moonlighting clauses risky under Wyoming's non-compete law?
Potentially. A narrow conflict-of-interest rule is different from a broad ban on outside work, but the statutory text creates risk for clauses that restrict compensation for labor.
The statute focuses on covenants that restrict compensation for skilled or unskilled labor . Fisher Phillips specifically flags anti-moonlighting provisions as one of the adjacent covenant types Wyoming courts may need to classify under the 2025 statute .
This is useful to keep separate from non-competes because many employers do not call those clauses non-competes, even when they restrict outside work in a way that starts to resemble one.
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) supports the statutory focus on restrictions on compensation for skilled or unskilled labor.
Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a) (2025).
Fisher Phillips supports the classification caution for anti-moonlighting clauses and other adjacent restraints.
For instance, will customer non-solicitation covenants fall into this definition? Employee non-solicitation covenants? Broad confidentiality agreements? "Anti-moonlighting" agreements
See Fisher Phillips, New Law Voids Most Wyoming Non-Compete Agreements (2025).
Can Wyoming employers recover relocation, education, or training expenses from departing employees?
Yes, but only within the statutory schedule. The longer the employee stays, the less the employer can recover.
Wyoming permits recovery of up to 100% of relocation, education, and training expenses if the employee served less than two years; up to 66% after at least two but less than three years; and up to 33% after at least three but less than four years. The repayment schedule does not provide an additional recovery tier after that.
A clause drafted as an expense-recovery provision carries less risk than one that operates as a disguised penalty for competition. Enforceability is more likely when the amount is tied to actual relocation, education, or training expense and the statutory percentages. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii)(A) supports the categories of recoverable expense and the first repayment tier (up to 100% for under two years of service).
Any contractual provision providing for the recovery of all or a portion of the expense of relocating, educating and training an employee as follows: (A) Recovery of not more than one hundred percent (100%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two (2) years;
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii)(A) (2025).
Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii)(B)–(C) supports the remaining two repayment tiers (66% after two years, 33% after three years), completing the tenure-capped schedule.
(B) Recovery of not more than sixty-six percent (66%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between two (2) and less than three (3) years; (C) Recovery of not more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for between three (3) and less than four (4) years.
See Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108(a)(iii)(B)–(C) (2025).
Ogletree supports the same tiered repayment schedule in employer-facing commentary.
The law permits employers to include provisions in employment contracts allowing them to recover relocation, education, and training expenses
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Faegre Drinker supports the repayment exception and the need to update templates for compliance.
Recovery of not more than 100% of the expense for an employee who has served an employer for a period of less than two years.
See Faegre Drinker, Wyoming Enacts Significant Restrictions on Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Should employers update or re-review Wyoming restrictive covenant templates after July 1, 2025?
Probably yes — and at least re-review. Any form that contains a non-compete outside a statutory exception should be updated, while a form with no non-compete may already conform; either way the new statute turns unreviewed template rollover into a legal risk point, especially where an older covenant might have remained enforceable under common law.
Wyoming-specific commentary treats SF 107 as a major narrowing of employer practice, not a minor drafting tweak . A complete re-review usually covers non-compete templates, offer letters, incentive agreements, physician agreements, non-solicits, NDAs, anti-moonlighting clauses, and repayment provisions together. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement, the Wyoming non-compete reviewer checklist walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
Commentary specifically warns employers to evaluate routine replacement or updating programs because a new agreement after July 1, 2025 may replace something that was enforceable with something void . Where a grandfathered covenant needs changes, commentary suggests amending or renewing it rather than signing a fresh agreement, when the existing terms allow that, so the covenant is not treated as newly entered into after the effective date . The common-law cases also mean that even old-law Wyoming covenants required careful drafting. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Ogletree supports employer review and revision of restrictive covenant practices after the new law.
Employers using noncompete agreements may want to consider whether those provisions are being applied in one of the specifically enumerated exceptions.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Littler supports the rollover-warning point for routine agreement updates after the effective date.
Employers in Wyoming will need to evaluate routine replacement or updating programs that put a new non-compete agreement in place
See Littler Mendelson, Wyoming Bans Non-Compete Covenants with Some Exceptions (2025).
Holland & Hart supports amending or renewing an existing covenant rather than replacing it, to preserve pre-July-1-2025 grandfathered status.
consider whether those agreements have terms that permit you to renew or amend the agreements without entering into an entirely new agreement.
See Holland & Hart, Wyoming Legislature Takes a Bite Out of Covenants Not to Compete (2025).
Brown supports the strict-construction and separate-consideration baseline for pre-2025 covenants.
Continued employment is not sufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement.
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Malave supports the five-element common-law test.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Hassler supports the drafting risk created by Wyoming's refusal to narrow overbroad covenants.
By rejecting the liberal blue pencil rule, we encourage employers to incorporate only reasonable trade restraints into their employment contracts
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.
What recent developments changed Wyoming non-compete law?
Wyoming moved from a mostly common-law regime to a broad prospective statutory ban with enumerated exceptions.
March 19, 2025: Governor Mark Gordon signed Senate File 107, creating Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 and adding physician-specific rules. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
July 1, 2025: The new statute took effect for contracts entered into on or after that date. Earlier contracts were not altered, amended, or impaired by the act .
2021–2022 backdrop: Wyoming's common-law baseline was already demanding because of strict construction, consideration, and no-narrowing cases. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
SF 107 supports the creation of Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108, the July 1, 2025 effective date, and prospective application.
This act shall apply to contracts entered into on and after July 1, 2025.
See S.F. 107, Enrolled Act No. 87, §§ 1–3, 68th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2025).
Ogletree supports the employer-facing summary of the effective date and new limits.
The new legislation, which will take effect on July 1, 2025, applies to contracts entered into on or after that date.
See Ogletree Deakins, Wyoming Enacts Law to Restrict the Use of Noncompete Agreements (2025).
Brown supports the demanding consideration backdrop — continued employment alone is not enough to support a Wyoming non-compete.
Continued employment is not sufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement.
See Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC, 2021 WY 83, 491 P.3d 1021.
Malave supports the common-law elements for older covenants.
A valid and enforceable covenant not to compete requires a showing that the covenant is: (1) in writing; (2) part of a contract of employment; (3) based on reasonable consideration; (4) reasonable in durational and geographical limitations; and (5) not against public policy.
See Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2022 WY 14, 503 P.3d 36.
Hassler supports the rule against judicial narrowing that made drafting error more expensive before the statute.
The entire agreement is void in violation of public policy.
See Hassler v. Circle C Resources, 2022 WY 28, 505 P.3d 169.
What does federal law require a non-compete or confidentiality agreement in Wyoming to say about whistleblowers and pay?
An employee confidentiality, non-compete, or invention assignment agreement signed or updated now that governs trade secrets or other confidential information must give the Defend Trade Secrets Act whistleblower-immunity notice, and for employees the National Labor Relations Act covers, Section 7 of that Act protects concerted activity, including joining together over pay and working conditions, that a broad confidentiality clause can restrict. The employer may satisfy the notice duty by cross-referencing a qualifying policy document provided to the employee, but an employer that omits the notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act in an action against an employee who was not given notice.
The notice describes a federal immunity: an individual cannot be held liable under federal or state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal. For an agreement signed or updated now, the duty to give that notice reaches any agreement with an employee that governs trade secrets or other confidential information, whatever else the agreement does.
Section 7 gives employees the National Labor Relations Act covers a statutory right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, including joining together to improve pay and working conditions. For employees the Act covers, the Board's work-rule standard adopted in 2023 makes a rule presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights; an employer can rebut that presumption only by showing a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot serve with a more narrowly tailored rule. The 2023 standard may change, but the Section 7 right it enforces is statutory. State law may add its own requirements for the same clauses.
A form carried over without the immunity notice, or a cross-reference to a reporting policy the employee never received, leaves the confidentiality clause without a valid notice, so the Act's exemplary damages and attorney fees are unavailable against that employee. A Confidential Information definition that sweeps in pay and working conditions with no carve-out exposes the employer to an unfair-labor-practice finding for employees the Act covers.
Sources for this answer
An individual is immune from criminal and civil liability under federal and state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal.
An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that— (A) is made— (i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1).
An employer must give notice of the trade-secret whistleblower immunity in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
An employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A).
An employer complies with the notice requirement by cross-referencing a policy document, provided to the employee, that sets out the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
An employer shall be considered to be in compliance with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A) if the employer provides a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(B).
An employer that does not give the required notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees in a trade-secret action against an employee who did not receive it.
If an employer does not comply with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A), the employer may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 1836(b)(3) in an action against an employee to whom notice was not provided.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(C).
Section 7 gives employees the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, the statutory basis for keeping discussion of pay and working conditions outside confidentiality restrictions.
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
See 29 U.S.C. § 157 (NLRA § 7).
The National Labor Relations Board protects the right of private-sector employees, with or without a union, to join together to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Established in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees from unfair labor practices and protects the right of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve wages, benefits and working conditions.
See NLRB Office of Public Affairs, news release of Feb. 21, 2023 (agency mission statement).
Under the work-rule standard the Board adopted in 2023, a rule with a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot advance with a more narrowly tailored rule.
Under the new standard adopted in Stericycle, the General Counsel must prove that a challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their rights. If the General Counsel does so, then the rule is presumptively unlawful. However, the employer may rebut the presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.
See Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023); NLRB Office of Public Affairs, Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules (Aug. 2, 2023).