Suppose you live and work in Pittsburgh, and your employer does business in multiple states. You quit your job and take one for a competitor of your (former) employer. That employer sends you a cease and desist letter, demanding that you stop “competing.”
Pennsylvania law provides some great defenses. Click here to learn PA’s law. But what if the noncompete says that Florida law governs?
Each state treats noncompetes differently, which can drastically change the outcome.
* * *
Can Your Employment Agreement Choose Another State’s Law?
The short answer is: Yes.
An employment agreement can select the law of a state where the employee has never lived or worked.
In fact, courts almost always follow the parties’ contract when it comes to a choice of law provision.
But in some very narrow instances, it may prove worthwhile to fight the choice of law provision, if, for example, the chosen law violates a fundamental policy of Pennsylvania, a judge in PA may disregard the other state’s law.
Otherwise, Pennsylvania courts use the framework in § 187 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Under that framework, a court can disregard the chosen law only if the state lacks a substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the choice. The employer’s headquarters can supply a substantial connection to the chosen state.
Have a lawyer read the choice-of-law clause alongside the forum-selection clause and any arbitration provision. These provisions can determine where suit must be filed and what state’s law will apply.
Let’s talk now about how the law of each state can vary.
* * *
The Differences Among the States
Income: Some states look mainly at the employee’s income: if the employee’s income is below a certain amount, many states disregard the noncompete entirely.
Consideration: States also treat “consideration” differently. Consideration is what the employer gives the employee for signing the noncompete. It must be something specific. For example, if I promise to “sell” you my car for nothing in exchange, or for something you gave me last last year, that’s not an enforceable sale agreement, because there’s no new consideration for the promise to sell the car. But states differ as to what constitutes valid consideration.
Health Care Workers: Some states give special protections to healthcare workers. Pennsylvania is among several states that limit certain healthcare noncompetes to one year. Connecticut, Maryland, Texas, and West Virginia impose similar time limits. However, their coverage differs. Some protect physicians alone, while others include nurses, physician assistants, or other licensed providers. Geographic limits, compensation thresholds, and the date of the agreement can also determine whether the restriction is enforceable.
Broadly speaking, here is how the eastern states compare, generally:
| State | Rule for ordinary employment noncompetes |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | The employee’s income is not a large factor. Rather, a covenant merely needs adequate consideration, reasonable limits in time and territory, and a legitimate employer interest. For consideration: the job itself can support a covenant agreed to at hiring. An employer adding a covenant after work begins generally must give the employee something new, such as a raise or promotion. Continued employment alone is insufficient. Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266 (Pa. 2015). |
| New York | The restriction must go no further than necessary to protect a legitimate interest, avoid undue hardship to the employee, and avoid harm to the public. A court can enforce part of an over-broad covenant in appropriate circumstances. Employer overreaching can weigh against partial enforcement. As of November 10, 2026, the Senate’s broader noncompete bill, S9759, remains in Assembly committee. |
| Maryland | Voids covered noncompetes for employees earning 150% or less of the state minimum wage, currently $22.50 per hour. The statute applies whether the agreement was signed in Maryland or elsewhere. Outside statutory prohibitions, courts consider whether the restraint reasonably protects the employer’s interest without undue hardship or harm to the public. Statute Text |
| Virginia | Bars noncompetes for workers within its statutory low-wage definition. The 2026 earnings benchmark is less than $1,507.01 per week, and the definition generally also covers workers entitled to federal overtime regardless of pay. For agreements entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2026 in Virginia, discharge without cause generally defeats enforcement unless the employer provides severance or another monetary payment disclosed when the covenant was signed. Otherwise, courts scrutinize the duration, territory, and activities the agreement restricts. |
| Florida | Under § 542.335, once the employer establishes a legitimate interest and makes an initial showing that the restraint is reasonably necessary, the employee bears the burden of showing over-breadth or lack of necessity. Courts must narrow an over-broad restraint to what the interest requires and may not consider individualized hardship. For ordinary employment restrictions unrelated to trade-secret protection or a business sale, six months or less is presumed reasonable in duration and more than two years is presumed unreasonable. Florida’s separate CHOICE Act allows qualifying noncompetes of up to four years and gives employers a stronger path to a preliminary injunction. It can reach an out-of-state worker when the employer’s principal place of business is in Florida and the qualifying agreement expressly selects Florida law. |
| North Carolina | Requires a signed writing, consideration, and a reasonable restriction protecting a legitimate business interest. A court can strike a distinctly separable restriction, but it cannot rewrite the agreement to supply a smaller territory or shorter term, even if the contract purports to authorize revision. Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693 (2016). |
| South Carolina | Scrutinizes whether the restriction is necessary and reasonably limited. An overbroad restriction generally stands or falls as written. In Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court refused to let the employer use the contract’s chosen New Jersey law to supply a missing geographic limit. |
| Illinois | The Freedom to Work Act requires actual or expected annualized earnings above $75,000, rising to above $80,000 on January 1, 2027. The employer must advise the employee in writing to consult an attorney and provide a 14-day review opportunity. Two years of employment after signing can supply adequate consideration, as can sufficient professional or financial benefits. Courts have discretion to reform some over-broad covenants. ftp.ilga.gov |
* * *
Where the Differences are Sharpest Across the USA
- California generally voids employment noncompetes, subject to narrow statutory exceptions. California Labor Code § 925 also allows qualifying employees who primarily reside and work in California to void certain out-of-state forum or governing-law provisions imposed as a condition of employment. The section has an exception for employees individually represented by counsel in negotiating the relevant terms.
- Minnesota generally voids employment noncompetes entered into on or after July 1, 2023, including those covering independent contractors. Its statute also protects covered workers who primarily reside and work there from contractual provisions that require an out-of-state forum or deprive them of Minnesota’s substantive protections.
- Ohio differs from Pennsylvania on what an employee must receive for signing after hiring. The Ohio Supreme Court held that continued at-will employment can supply consideration. Pennsylvania generally requires a new benefit.
- Washington already restricts out-of-state forum and choice-of-law provisions in noncompetes signed by Washington-based workers. Its broader ban takes effect June 30, 2027, and reaches existing covenants as well as new ones.
One Agreement, Different Outcomes
Say you earn $70,000 a year as an account manager. After you start work, your employer asks you to sign a one-year noncompete. You receive no raise, promotion, or other new benefit.
Your pay could settle the question in Illinois. What you received in exchange for signing could decide the issue in Pennsylvania. Under Ohio law, keeping your at-will job could satisfy that requirement. The court would then consider whether the restriction itself is reasonable.
* * *
What if the Restriction Goes Too Far?
Now suppose the agreement is otherwise valid, but its territory is too broad. Under Florida’s general statute, a court must narrow the restriction to what the employer needs to protect its proven business interest. Under South Carolina law, the restriction may fail as written.
* * *
Exception: A Florida Clause that did Not Control in New York
It’s very rare, but sometimes your state’s judge will refuse to apply law of another state.
In Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, a Florida corporation and its New York subsidiary tried to enforce a clause that restricted a former employee’s dealings with customers. She had worked solely in New York. Her agreement selected Florida law.
The difference mattered because Florida law barred courts from considering the worker’s individual hardship. In New York, undue hardship is part of the test. New York’s highest court applied New York law to the customer restriction. It then sent the case back to decide whether part of the restriction could be enforced. Brown & Brown, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015).
* * *
What to Check in Your Own Agreement
For a multi-state noncompete, start with the contract and the facts that connect the job to each state. Identify where you worked and where the employer is based. Then check which law the parties chose and where they agreed to resolve a dispute. These state rules remain central because the FTC removed its nationwide noncompete rule from the federal regulations in 2026.
If no state is selected, the law of the state here you work will likely apply, but contact an attorney, because sometimes we can argue that the more favorable law of another state — such as California — should apply based on “conflict of law” principles, which a lawyer should navigate for you.
Once you and your lawyer know which law governs, you can ask the questions that matter under that law. If PA law applies, you look at:
- what you received for signing,
- how the job ended,
- how badly does the worker need income from working for a competitor?
- what is the employer’s legitimate interest it is seeking to protect?
- whether a court can narrow the restriction based on a balancing of the parties’ interests?
- is the worker in the healthcare field, where certain restrictions on noncompetes exist?
In PA, the employee’s income won’t be key, but it can be a factor in weighing the above questions.
* * *
Contact Us Today!
Contact a lawyer at the Elliott Law Group, PC today for a review of your noncompete!
