Gera Tools

Non-Compete Clause Reasonableness Tool

Assess non-compete enforceability by state using duration, geography, and scope

Uses embedded state non-compete rules (outright bans, presumptive-reasonable duration limits, consideration requirements) to flag whether a clause's term and geographic radius likely fall inside enforceable bounds. For employment counsel drafting or reviewing covenants. Runs in your browser. It runs free in your browser on Gera Tools, with nothing uploaded.

Last updated Source: Gera Tools

Which states ban non-competes entirely?

California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Minnesota broadly void employee non-competes, and several others restrict them heavily by wage threshold or occupation. In a ban state, no duration or radius makes an ordinary employee non-compete enforceable, which the tool flags immediately.

Non-compete enforceability turns heavily on the governing state, the length of the restriction, and how broad its geography is. This tool applies generalised, state-specific parameters to flag whether a clause’s duration and radius likely sit inside enforceable bounds, helping you spot overbroad terms before they are challenged.

How it works

For each state the tool stores whether non-competes are broadly banned, a presumptive-reasonable duration cap in months, and whether fresh consideration is typically required. Your inputs are compared against those values:

if state bans non-competes            -> unenforceable as written
if duration <= presumptive cap        -> duration likely reasonable
if duration > cap                     -> duration likely overbroad
if radius is tied to work area        -> geography likely reasonable
if restriction is nationwide          -> geography likely overbroad

The output is a set of green, caution, and red flags rather than a single verdict, because courts weigh these factors together and many states can blue-pencil an overbroad term down to a reasonable one rather than voiding it entirely.

States that ban non-competes

Several US states have broadly invalidated employee non-competes. As of the time of writing, California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Minnesota void them for most employees as a matter of public policy. Colorado bans them for workers below a salary threshold. Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and others have enacted income thresholds and profession-specific carve-outs that effectively ban them for lower-paid workers.

In a ban state, the tool flags the clause red regardless of the duration or radius, because no form of the restriction is enforceable for ordinary employees under those state laws.

What duration is considered reasonable?

Courts in states that enforce non-competes have developed general norms:

  • Six months to one year — generally accepted without scrutiny for most roles.
  • Two years — accepted in many states for roles with significant customer relationships, trade secrets, or training investment.
  • Three years — attracts scrutiny in most jurisdictions; may be reduced by blue-pencilling.
  • Five years or more — almost universally treated as overbroad; courts rarely enforce these as written.

The one-year figure is often cited as the most reliably enforceable duration across the broadest range of states and roles. The tool flags anything beyond the state’s presumptive cap as caution or red.

Geographic scope: how specific does it need to be?

Geographic reasonableness is tested against the employer’s actual territory — specifically, the area where the employee worked and had meaningful customer or competitive exposure. A nationwide restriction on a locally based account manager who never served clients outside one metro area is routinely found overbroad.

Typical patterns that hold up in court:

  • A specific county or radius around an office where the employee was based
  • A list of named metropolitan areas the employee actually served
  • A regional territory aligned with the employee’s assignment

Patterns that face challenge:

  • Nationwide or global restrictions on locally based employees
  • A radius so large it covers territory the employee never touched
  • A scope defined by the employer’s aspirational market rather than actual operations

Consideration requirements

Some states — including Illinois and New Jersey — require that a non-compete signed after the start of employment be supported by fresh consideration: something beyond merely continued employment, such as a raise, bonus, promotion, or other tangible benefit. The tool flags this requirement where applicable so you can confirm whether adequate consideration was provided.

Blue-pencilling and severability

Many states allow courts to reduce — rather than void — an overbroad clause to the maximum enforceable terms. This doctrine of “blue-pencilling” means a three-year nationwide restriction might be enforced as a one-year, regional-territory restriction. However, blue-pencilling creates uncertainty: you cannot predict exactly how a court will revise the clause. Drafting within enforceable bounds from the start is always preferable.

Important: this tool applies generalised parameters and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in the governing jurisdiction. Non-compete law changes frequently through legislation and case law, and the specific facts of a role, industry, and employer always matter.