Non-Compete Laws in Nevada
Restricted by income threshold
Nevada restricts non-competes for hourly employees. For salaried workers, non-competes are presumptively void unless they meet statutory criteria including valuable consideration, narrow tailoring, no undue hardship, and protection of legitimate business interests.
Key details
| Enforceability | Restricted by income threshold |
|---|---|
| Blue pencil doctrine | Varies |
| Key statute | Nev. Rev. Stat. §613.195 |
What this means for you
If you are an hourly employee, your non-compete is likely void. If salaried, your agreement must meet strict statutory criteria.
Non-compete laws in Nevada: what you need to know
Nevada restricts non-competes for hourly employees, who cannot be bound by non-compete agreements regardless of their earnings. For salaried workers, Nevada law creates a framework where non-competes are presumptively void unless they meet specific statutory criteria. The agreement must be supported by valuable consideration, narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate business interest, not impose an undue hardship on the employee, and not be injurious to the public.
A key feature of Nevada's law is its protection of former employees' customer relationships. Employers cannot prevent former employees from providing services to a former customer if the former employee did not seek out the client relationship, the customer voluntarily chose to work with the former employee, and the former employee is otherwise complying with the terms of the agreement. This provision recognizes that customer loyalty often follows the individual, not the company.
Nevada courts can modify overly broad non-competes to make them enforceable, but they can also award an employee attorney fees if the employer seeks to enforce an agreement that is found to be void or unenforceable. This creates a financial risk for employers who aggressively pursue enforcement of questionable agreements.
For Nevada workers evaluating their non-compete, the critical question is usually whether you are hourly or salaried. If you are paid solely on an hourly basis, your non-compete is void. If you are salaried, the agreement must meet all of the statutory requirements to be enforceable. Vague or overly broad agreements that do not clearly identify the legitimate business interest being protected are vulnerable to challenge.
Nevada's protection of hourly employees and its customer-relationship provision create a distinctive framework. The customer provision is particularly worker-friendly because it recognizes that customer loyalty often follows the individual rather than the company, and prevents employers from using non-competes to claim ownership over relationships that the employee built through their own effort and skill.
For salaried workers in Nevada, the presumptive-void standard creates a meaningful hurdle for employers. The employer must affirmatively demonstrate that the non-compete meets all statutory requirements to overcome the presumption. This shifts the practical burden to the employer and provides salaried workers with stronger protection than in states where non-competes are presumed valid.
More Nevada workplace laws
Check other workplace law topics for Nevada:
Frequently asked questions about non-compete laws in Nevada
Yes. Nevada law prohibits employers from requiring employees who are paid solely on an hourly basis to sign non-compete agreements.
Not always. Nevada law provides that an employer cannot prevent a former employee from serving a former customer if the employee did not seek out the relationship, the customer voluntarily chose to work with the employee, and the employee is otherwise complying with the agreement's terms.
Yes. Nevada courts can modify overly broad non-competes to make them reasonable and enforceable. However, if the court finds the agreement is void or unenforceable, the employee may recover attorney fees.
The non-compete must be supported by valuable consideration. For new employees, the job offer itself may constitute consideration. For existing employees, additional consideration beyond continued employment may be required.
Nevada does not set a specific statutory maximum duration, but the agreement must be reasonable. Courts evaluate duration as part of the overall reasonableness analysis. Agreements lasting more than two years are more likely to be challenged.