竞业限制协议：全美范围内限制竞业限制协议的法律现状（二）（2026年3月更新）

弗吉尼亚州 

弗吉尼亚州的工资门槛法（弗吉尼亚州法典第40.1-28.7:8条，修正案将于2025年7月1日生效）限制对“低薪员工”施加竞业限制条款，

该法定义低薪员工为平均周薪低于弗吉尼亚州平均周薪的员工，或根据《美国法典》第29编第207条有权获得加班补偿的员工。通

过这种方式定义“低薪员工”，弗吉尼亚州将竞业限制门槛与全州工资水平和联邦法律挂钩。

自上次发帖以来的最新进展：自2025年7月以来，弗吉尼亚州实施了S.B. 1218法案（该法案在上次发帖时已获通过，并于2025年7月

1日生效），限制对根据《公平劳动标准法》有权加班的员工施加竞业限制条款，无论其周薪收入如何。弗吉尼亚州立法机构目前正

在审议两项与竞业限制相关的新法案：S. 128（将对医疗保健工作者的竞业限制施加新的限制）和S.B. 170（将限制对未获遣散费的被

解雇员工执行竞业限制条款）。

罗德岛州 

罗德岛州的工资门槛法（罗德岛州普通法第28-59-1至3条）于2020年1月15日生效，该法限制对根据《公平劳动标准法》有权获得加

班费的员工以及收入低于联邦贫困线250%的低薪员工施加竞业限制条款。[自2025年7月上一篇博客文章以来无更新。]

医疗保健行业禁令 限制竞业限制的最常见州法律类型是对某些或所有医疗保健专业人员的竞业限制进行限制或限制。此类法律日益

受到欢迎，仅在过去两年中就提出了数十项法案，这些法案要么在无其他法定竞业限制限制或限制较少的州引入医疗保健行业禁令，

要么扩大从竞业限制禁令中受益的特定医疗保健专业人员的类型。目前，有十六个州实施了某种类型的竞业限制禁令或限制，使医疗

保健专业人员受益（阿肯色州、康涅狄格州、特拉华州、印第安纳州、爱荷华州、肯塔基州、路易斯安那州、马里兰州、马萨诸塞州、

新罕布什尔州、新墨西哥州、俄勒冈州、宾夕法尼亚州、南达科他州、德克萨斯州）。

针对特定职业的禁令 医疗保健行业竞业限制中较为常见的一种类型是全面限制从事某些特定类型的医疗保健职业，如医生、护士或其

他医疗保健从业者。

州马萨诸塞州 

例如，马萨诸塞州广泛保护几类医疗保健专业人员免受竞业限制条款的约束：医生（《马萨诸塞州普通法汇编》第112条第12X款（1977

年））；护士（《马萨诸塞州普通法汇编》第112条第74D款（1983年））；以及心理学家（《马萨诸塞州普通法汇编》第112条第129B

款（2004年10月24日））。[自2025年7月上一篇博客文章以来无更新。]

印第安纳州

将竞业限制禁令限制在初级保健医生范围内（印第安纳州法典第25-22.5-5、5-2.5条，自2023年7月1日起生效）。

自上次发帖以来的更新：自2025年7月起，印第安纳州颁布了一项新法律（S.B. 475，于2025年3月6日通过，IC § 25-22.5-5.5-2.3，自2025

年7月1日起生效），该法律将现有的初级保健医生禁令扩大至包括所有医生。印第安纳州立法机构目前正在审议一项新法案，即S.B. 132

（于2026年1月5日提出），该法案将限制对收入低于15万美元的员工施加竞业限制条款。

职业特定工资门槛与限制 医疗保健行业对竞业限制协议的另一种常见限制方式是，要么限制对低于特定工资门槛（与上文第三部分A节讨

论的一般工资门槛禁令不同）的某些医疗保健从业人员实施竞业限制协议，要么在法规中明确规定，对于特定群体的医疗保健从业人员，

竞业限制协议必须满足哪些条件才能生效。一些州通过的法律综合了这两种方法。

哥伦比亚特区 

哥伦比亚特区并未对所有医疗专家广泛限制竞业限制条款，而是针对医疗专家实施了工资门槛禁令。具体而言，根据法规规定（哥伦比亚

特区法典第32-581.01至32-581.05条，自2022年9月1日起生效），自2022年10月1日起，哥伦比亚特区法律限制年收入低于25万美元的医

疗专家签订竞业限制条款，且该年收入门槛将从2024年开始逐年提高。“医疗专家”是指持有行医执照、身为医生且已完成医学住院医师培

训的人员。除针对医疗专家的工资门槛禁令外，哥伦比亚特区法律还普遍限制年收入低于15万美元的劳动者签订竞业限制条款（该年收入

门槛同样根据法规规定逐年提高，到2026年约为162,164美元）。

除了限制对年收入低于法令规定的年度工资门槛的医疗专家实施竞业限制外，哥伦比亚特区法律规定，对于年收入超过25万美元（截至

2026年，根据法定年度工资门槛增长，约为270,274美元）的医疗专家，竞业限制协议若要具有执行力，必须明确限制的功能范围，包括

“员工被限制从事或代表哪些服务、角色、行业或竞争实体”，以及地理限制，且协议期限不得超过两年，此外还需满足其他法定要求。[除

年度工资门槛增长外，自2025年7月上一篇博文以来无其他更新。]

马里兰州：

与哥伦比亚特区一样，马里兰州实施了一项针对医疗保健行业的竞业限制工资门槛禁令，该禁令与其一般工资门槛禁令有所不同。总体而

言，马里兰州规定，对于收入低于州最低工资（2026年为49,920美元）150%的低薪劳动者，不得执行竞业限制条款（马里兰州法典第3-71

6条，自2023年10月1日起生效）。医疗保健提供者，即那些提供直接患者护理且根据《马里兰州卫生职业条款》必须持有执照的人员，如

果年收入等于或低于350,000美元，同样可以不受竞业限制条款的约束。在马里兰州，年收入超过350,000美元的医疗保健提供者，如果自

离职之日起不超过一年，且就业地点与主要就业地点之间的地理距离不超过10英里，则可能受到竞业限制条款的约束。参见马里兰州法典

第3-716条，该条自2024年6月1日起生效，但影响的是2025年7月1日或之后签署的协议。

自上次发帖以来的最新进展：自2025年7月以来，马里兰州立法机构正在审议一项新法案：H.B. 1016（于2026年1月提出），该法案将使雇

主在重新安置、重组或以其他方式使其大部分员工不再位于该州的情况下签订的非竞业协议失效。

行业禁令 虽然最常见的行业特定竞业限制令针对的是医疗保健行业，但有七个州（除针对医疗保健行业的禁令外，或作为其替代）已实施

影响非医疗保健行业（即兽医或广播公司）的竞业限制令或限制措施（哥伦比亚特区、夏威夷州、路易斯安那州、缅因州、马里兰州、马萨

诸塞州、犹他州）。

哥伦比亚特区

哥伦比亚特区最近对广播从业人员实施了一项全面禁令，不论其年薪水平如何（哥伦比亚特区法典第32-581.01至32-581.05条，自2022年9月

1日起生效）。广播从业人员被定义为“拥有或运营电视、广播、有线电视或其他广播电台或网络（包括类似于广播电台或网络的卫星服务）的

法律实体的播报或非播报创作者（如主播、音乐节目主持人、编辑、制作人、节目主持人、记者或作家）”。[除上文提及的年薪门槛年度调整

外，自2025年7月上一篇博客文章以来无其他更新。]

犹他州 

犹他州并未对广播业员工普遍实施竞业限制，而是针对收入高于或低于特定工资门槛的广播业员工实施了一系列限制措施。（《犹他州法典》

第34-51-101至301条，2016年5月10日生效）。对于每周收入低于913美元或根据《公平劳动标准法》符合加班条件的广播业员工，犹他州允

许最长一年的竞业限制期；对于收入高于该工资门槛的员工，犹他州法律界定了竞业限制必须满足的条件，以使其具有可执行性，包括要求竞

业限制“期限合理”且基于行业标准。广播业员工被定义为通过电视、有线电视或广播从事“向公众分发或传输电子或电磁信号”业务的人员，或通

过这些手段准备、开发或创作一个或多个节目的人员。

自上次发帖以来的更新：犹他州已实施一项新法律，即《犹他州法典》第58-89-101条（2025年5月7日生效），该法律限制医疗保健服务平台

要求医护人员签署竞业限制协议。犹他州立法机构目前正在审议一项新法案，即H.B. 203（2026年提出），该法案将限制对《公平劳动标准法》

下非豁免员工、学生、18岁以下人员、收入低于155,000美元的员工以及因裁员而被解雇的员工实施竞业限制。

夏威夷 

夏威夷法律限制所有“科技企业”雇员签订竞业限制协议。（《夏威夷修订法》第480-4(d)条，自2015年1月1日起生效），而科技企业则被定义

为“其大部分总收入来源于其软件开发或信息技术开发，或两者兼有”的产品或服务的销售或许可的贸易或企业，并且不包括被视为广播行业或

电信运营商一部分的企业。[自2025年7月上一篇帖子以来无更新。]

马里兰州：

马里兰州法律反映出一种日益增长的趋势，即限制对兽医或兽医技师施加竞业限制条款：马里兰州限制对这两类员工施加竞业限制条款。

（《马里兰州法典》第3-716条，自2024年6月1日起生效）。[自上次发布以来，有关马里兰州的最新动态，请参见上文“马里兰州聚焦”部分。]

可保护利益 最后一类州级竞业限制法规并不限制或可以说没有实质性限制竞业限制，而是仅仅定义了“可保护利益”，雇主可据此为竞业限制

提供正当化理由，并/或规定法院在判定竞业限制是否可执行时应考虑的类别。有八个州制定了“可保护利益”法规，概述了法院在审查竞业限

制协议的可执行性时应考虑的因素（阿拉巴马州、佛罗里达州、佐治亚州、爱达荷州、密歇根州、密西西比州、北卡罗来纳州、威斯康星州）。

威斯康星州

威斯康星州法律规定，竞业限制条款仅在为保护雇主而合理必要且不会不合理地限制雇员就业的情况下才被允许。《威斯康星州法典》第

103.465条，2016年3月2日修订。

自上次发帖以来的最新进展：自2025年7月以来，威斯康星州立法机构已提出并正在审议两项与非竞业限制条款相关的新法案：威斯康星州

A.B. 567法案（2025年10月提出），该法案将废除大多数非竞业限制条款，仅保留少数例外情况；以及S.B. 657 / A.B. 675法案（2025年11月

提出），该法案将废除医疗从业人员的非竞业限制条款，前提是这些条款限制从业时间超过24个月或从业人员被解雇。

佐治亚州 

佐治亚州法律规定，竞业限制协议若服务于正当商业利益，且在时间、地理区域和限制活动范围上合理，则可允许，但若无“正当商业利益”

支持，则无效。见《佐治亚州法典》第13-8-50至59条（2011年5月11日）。[自2025年7月上次发布以来无更新。]

State Spotlight: Virginia

Virginia’s wage threshold law (Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8, amendment goes into effect July 1, 2025), bans noncompetes for “low-wage employees,”

 defined as employees whose average weekly earnings are less than the average weekly wage in Virginia, or those who are entitled to overtime

 compensation under 29 U.S.C. § 207.  In defining “low-wage employees” in this way, Virginia has tied the threshold for the noncompete ban to

 statewide wages and to federal law.

Update since last post: since July 2025, Virginia implemented S.B. 1218 (which had been passed at the time of the last post and went into effect

 on July 1, 2025), banning noncompetes for employees entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act regardless of their weekly income. 

 The Virginia legislature is presently considering two new bills related to noncompetes: S. 128 (which would impose new restrictions on 

noncompetes for healthcare workers), and S.B. 170 (which would prohibit enforcement of noncompetes against employees discharged without

 severance).

State Spotlight: Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s wage threshold law (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-59-1 – 3), which went into effect January 15, 2020, prohibits noncompetes for employees

 entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as for low-wage employees whose earnings are less than 250% of the federal 

poverty level.  [No updates since last blog post in July 2025.]

Healthcare Industry Bans

The most common type of state law restricting noncompetes is a ban or restriction of noncompetes for certain, or all, healthcare professionals. 

 These are increasingly popular, as demonstrated by the dozens of proposed bills introduced in the past two years alone that would either 

introduce healthcare industry bans in states with no or few other statutory restrictions on noncompetes, or would expand the types of defined 

healthcare professionals benefiting from a noncompete ban.  Sixteen states currently have some type of noncompete ban or restriction benefitting 

healthcare professionals (AR, CT, DE, IN, IA, KY, LA, MD, MA, NH, NM, OR, PA, SD, TX).

Profession-Specific Bans

The more common type of healthcare industry noncompete ban is a total ban on certain types of healthcare professions, such as physicians, nurses,

 or other healthcare practitioners.

State Spotlight: Massachusetts

For example, Massachusetts broadly protects several categories of healthcare professionals from noncompetes: physicians (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 112

 § 12X (1977)); nurses (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 112 § 74D (1983)); and psychologists (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 112 § 129B (Oct. 24, 2004)).  [No updates 

since last blog post in July 2025.]

State Spotlight: Indiana

Indiana limits its noncompete ban to primary care physicians (IC § 25-22.5-5,5-2.5, effective July 1, 2023).

Update since last post: since July 2025, Indiana enacted a new law (S.B. 475, passed March 6, 2025), IC § 25-22.5-5.5-2.3, effective July 1, 2025), which

 expands the existing primary care physician ban to include all physicians.  The Indiana legislature is currently considering a new bill, S.B. 132

 (introduced January 5, 2026), which would ban noncompetes for employees earning less than $150,000.

Profession-Specific Wage Thresholds and Restrictions

Another common approach to healthcare industry restrictions on noncompetes is to either ban noncompetes for certain healthcare practitioners

 below a defined wage threshold (distinct from the general wage threshold ban discussed above in Part III.A), or to define in the statute the conditions 

a noncompete must meet in order to be enforceable for specified groups of healthcare practitioners.  Some states have passed laws that are a 

combination of these two approaches.

State Spotlight: District of Columbia

Instead of banning noncompetes broadly for all medical specialists, the District of Columbia implements a wage threshold ban specific to medical 

specialists.  Specifically, D.C. law bans noncompetes for medical specialists earning less than $250,000 annually as of October 1, 2022, with the annual

 threshold increasing annually beginning in 2024, as described in the statute (D.C. Code. § 32-581.01 – 32-581.05, effective September 1, 2022). 

 “Medical specialists” are defined as those who hold a license to practice medicine, are a physician, and have completed their medical residency. 

 In addition to a medical specialist-specific wage threshold ban, D.C. law bans noncompetes in general for workers earning less than $150,000 

annually (also increasing on an annual basis as defined in the statute, and approximately $162,164 in 2026).

Beyond just banning noncompetes for medical specialists who earn less than the annual wage threshold defined in the statute, D.C. law provides 

that, for medical specialists who earn more than $250,000 annually (as of 2026, approximately $270,274, pursuant to the statutorily-defined annual 

wage threshold increase), for a noncompete to be enforceable, the agreement must specify the functional scope of the restriction “including what

 services, roles, industry, or competing entities the employee is restricted from performing work in or on behalf of,” geographical limitations, and

 must not exceed two years in duration, among other statutory requirements.  [Other than annual increases in the wage threshold, no updates 

since last blog post in July 2025.]

State Spotlight: Maryland

Like D.C., Maryland implements a healthcare industry wage threshold ban on noncompetes distinct from its general wage threshold ban.  In general, 

Maryland provides that noncompetes may not be enforced against low-wage workers earning less than 150% of the state minimum wage ($49,920 

in 2026) (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716, effective October 1, 2023).  Healthcare providers, defined as those that provide direct patient care and 

are required to be licensed under the Maryland Health Occupations Article, who earn equal to or less than $350,000 annually, may similarly not be

 subject to noncompetes.  In Maryland, healthcare providers who earn more than $350,000 annually may be subjected to noncompetes if they do 

not exceed one year from the last day of employment and do not exceed a geographical restriction of 10 miles from the primary place of 

employment.  See Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716, effective June 1, 2024, but affecting agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.

Update since last post: since July 2025, the Maryland legislature is considering one new bill: H.B. 1016 (introduced January 2026), which would 

void noncompetes where employers relocate, reorganize, or otherwise cease to have the majority of its employees located in the state.

Industry Bans

While the most common type of industry-specific noncompete bans target the healthcare industry, seven states have implemented (in addition

 to healthcare-specific bans, or in lieu of them) noncompete bans or restrictions affecting non-healthcare industries, namely veterinarians or 

broadcasters (DC, HI, LA, ME, MD, MA, UT).

State Spotlight: District of Columbia

The District of Columbia recently instituted a blanket ban for broadcast employees, regardless of their annual compensation (D.C. Code.

 § 32-581.01 – 32-581.05, effective September 1, 2022).  Broadcast employees are defined as an “on- or off-air creator (such as an anchor, 

disc jockey, editor, producer, program host, reporter, or writer) of a legal entity that owns or operates a TV, radio, cable, or other broadcast 

station or network, including satellite-based services similar to a broadcast station or network.  [Other than annual increases in the wage 

threshold, see above, no updates since last blog post in July 2025.]

State Spotlight: Utah

Utah does not broadly ban noncompetes for broadcast employees, but instead implements a combination of restrictions for broadcast 

employees who make more, or less, than a defined wage threshold. (Utah Code Ann. §§ 34-51-101 – 301, effective May 10, 2016).  For 

broadcast employees making less than $913 per week or who qualify for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Utah permits 

noncompetes for up to one year; for those who make more than that wage threshold, Utah law defines the conditions the noncompete 

must meet in order to be enforceable, including requiring it to be “of reasonable duration” and based on industry standards.”  Broadcast 

employees are defined as those engaged in the business of “distributing or transmitting electronic or electromagnetic signals to the general 

public” using television, cable, or radio, or preparing, developing, or creating one or more programs by those means.

Update since last post: Utah has implemented a new law, Utah Code Ann. §§ 58-89-101 (effective May 7, 2025), which prohibits health care

 services platforms from requiring a healthcare worker to enter into a noncompete agreement.  The Utah legislature is currently considering 

a new bill, H.B. 203 (introduced in 2026), which would prohibit noncompetes for nonexempt employees under the FLSA, students, people less 

than 18 years of age, employees who earn less than $155,000, and if the employee was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force.

State Spotlight: Hawai‘i

Hawai‘i law bans noncompetes for all employees “of a technology business.”  (Haw. Rev. Stat. 480-4(d), effective January 1, 2015), which in turn 

is defined as a trade or business that derives the majority of its gross income from the sale or license of products or services “resulting from its 

software development or information technology development, or both,” and excludes businesses considered part of the broadcast industry or 

telecommunications carriers.  [No updates since last post in July 2025.]

State Spotlight: Maryland

Maryland law reflects a growing trend to ban noncompetes for veterinarians or vet techs: Maryland bans noncompetes restricting both types of 

employees.  (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716, effective June 1, 2024).  [See above Spotlight on Maryland for updates since last post.]

Protectable Interests

The last category of noncompete state statutes are those that do not ban, or arguably meaningfully restrict noncompetes, but instead merely 

define the “protectable interests” upon which an employer may justify a noncompete and/or specify the categories courts should consider when 

determining whether a noncompete is enforceable.  Eight states have “protectable interest” statutes outlining considerations for courts examining

 the enforceability of noncompete agreements (AL, FL, GA, ID, MI, MS, NC, WI).

State Spotlight: Wisconsin

Wisconsin law provides that noncompetes are only permitted if the restrictions on employment are reasonably necessary to protect the employer 

and do not unreasonably restrain the employee.  Wis. Stat. Ann. § 103.465, amended March 2, 2016.

Update since last post: since July 2025, the Wisconsin legislature has introduced and is now considering two new bills relating to noncompetes:

 WI A.B. 567 (introduced October 2025), which would void most noncompetes with few exceptions; and S.B. 657 / A.B. 675 (introduced November

 2025), which would void noncompetes for medical practitioners if they restrict work for more than 24 months or if the employee was terminated.

State Spotlight: Georgia

Georgia law provides that noncompete agreements are permissible if they serve a legitimate business interest, and if they are reasonable in time, 

geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities, but are void if they are not supported by a “legitimate business interest.”  Ga. Code Ann. §§ 

13-8-50 – 59 (May 11, 2011).  [No updates since last post in July 2025.]

----------------------------分隔线------------------------------

专注竞业限制15年，关注极兔竞调，教你如何破局。