Nevada Non-Compete Law: Enforceability, Hourly Workers, and NRS 613.195

Nevada non-compete law is set primarily by NRS 613.195, which bans non-compete agreements against hourly employees outright and enforces them against salaried workers only when the restriction is reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and the type of work it limits. The statute was tightened by Senate Bill 483 effective October 1, 2021, and it now lets courts award attorney fees to employees when an employer tries to enforce an agreement that violates its terms.¹

Hourly Workers Cannot Be Bound at All

If you were paid by the hour, your non-compete is unenforceable in Nevada. It does not matter how high the hourly rate is or what access you had to company information. The 2021 amendments made this categorical, and it is one of the broadest hourly-worker protections in the country.

Salaried employees are a different story. A non-compete against a salaried worker is potentially enforceable, but it still has to clear every other requirement in the statute. Your role inside the company also shapes how a court will look at the agreement. Restrictions on executives, senior managers, and people with real access to trade secrets or strategic plans get the most judicial deference. Courts are far more skeptical of non-competes imposed on lower-level workers who never handled confidential business strategy. If your job did not expose you to information a competitor could actually exploit, that skepticism cuts in your favor.

What Makes a Non-Compete Enforceable Against a Salaried Employee

Even for salaried workers, a Nevada non-compete has to be narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate business interest without unreasonably blocking the employee from earning a living. Three questions decide most cases.

Is the Duration and Geographic Scope Reasonable

Nevada case law gives concrete guideposts. In Ellis v. McDaniel, a two-year restriction limited to a five-mile radius around a medical clinic was upheld. In Hansen v. Edwards, a restriction covering the City of Reno was found reasonable, though the court imposed a one-year limit because the original agreement had none. In Jones v. Deeter, a five-year restriction covering a 100-mile radius was struck down as unreasonable. In Hotel Riviera v. Torres, a non-compete with no time limit at all was invalidated.

The pattern is straightforward. Courts want to see a restriction that matches the actual competitive threat. A two-year, geographically limited agreement protecting a specialized professional practice is far more likely to survive than a multi-year, statewide ban on working in an entire industry. In Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, the Nevada Supreme Court struck down an agreement that barred a casino host from any type of employment at any gaming establishment within 150 miles for a year. The problem was scope: the restriction blocked all work at a gaming property, not just the specific role that could threaten the employer’s interests.²

Does the Employer Have a Legitimate Business Interest

The employer has to show the non-compete protects something real: trade secrets, proprietary methods, confidential customer relationships, or specialized training the employer paid for. Wanting to keep a former employee out of the market is not, by itself, a legitimate interest. Courts look for evidence that the departing employee had access to information a competitor could use to gain an unfair advantage.

Was There Adequate Consideration

A non-compete needs something of value exchanged for the employee’s promise. When you sign at the start of a job, the job itself is the consideration. When an employer introduces a non-compete after you have already been working there, courts look harder. A promotion, a raise, a bonus, or new access to confidential information can satisfy the requirement. A vague promise of continued employment, standing alone, is weaker ground.

If You Were Laid Off

NRS 613.195 addresses involuntary termination directly. If you lose your job because of a reduction in force, a reorganization, or similar restructuring, your non-compete is enforceable only during the period the employer keeps paying your salary, benefits, or equivalent compensation. When those payments stop, so does the restriction.¹ A company cannot lay you off and then block you from finding work in your field.

Clients You Didn’t Solicit

Under NRS 613.195(3), an employer cannot use a non-compete to stop you from serving clients or customers you did not solicit while employed. If a former client contacts you on their own after you leave, your old employer cannot block that relationship. The restriction only reaches clients you actively pursued using information or relationships you developed on the job.¹

What Courts Do With Overbroad Agreements

Nevada used to follow a strict all-or-nothing rule. Before NRS 613.195, the Nevada Supreme Court held in Golden Road Motor Inn v. Islam that courts could not “blue pencil” a non-compete, meaning they could not edit its terms to make it enforceable. If any part was unreasonable, the whole thing failed.

The statute changed that. Under NRS 613.195(5), a court now has authority to revise an unreasonable non-compete rather than throw it out. In Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, the Nevada Supreme Court explained the limits of that power: a court must modify an overbroad agreement when it can do so without essentially writing a new one. Revising is allowed. Rewriting or redrafting is not. If the agreement needs only straightforward trimming, such as shortening a time period or narrowing a geographic area, the court should do it. If salvaging the agreement would require the court to supply essential missing terms, the court can refuse and let it fail.¹

This cuts both ways. A slightly overbroad agreement might be trimmed rather than destroyed, which helps employers. But an agreement that is fundamentally flawed will not be rescued to give the employer something enforceable. The worse the drafting, the more likely a court is to strike the whole thing.

Grounds to Challenge Your Non-Compete

Employees challenge non-competes on a handful of predictable grounds:

The restriction is unreasonably broad in duration or geography.
The employer has no legitimate business interest to protect.
The agreement was imposed without adequate consideration.
The employee is in a protected category, most commonly hourly workers.
The employer stopped paying severance after a layoff, or is trying to block a client the employee never solicited.

These defenses succeed often when the agreement was drafted without much attention to the statute. And the statute gives you a real financial lever: if a court finds the agreement violates certain provisions of NRS 613.195, the employer must pay your reasonable attorney fees. That flips the usual math. Many employees never push back because they cannot afford litigation. Fee-shifting means an employer trying to enforce an obviously invalid agreement risks paying for both sides’ lawyers.

Nevada is also an at-will employment state, so in theory an employer could let you go for refusing to sign a non-compete. In practice, the 2021 amendments and the fee-shifting rule have made employers more cautious about the agreements they push in front of workers.

Trade Secret Claims Can Survive Even If the Non-Compete Doesn’t

Non-compete disputes often overlap with trade secret claims, and that overlap matters. Even if your non-compete is unenforceable, a former employer can still pursue you for misappropriating trade secrets under Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NRS Chapter 600A) or the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. The federal statute allows a trade secret owner to sue when the secret relates to a product or service used in interstate commerce and was obtained through improper means.³

Some employers use non-competes as a shortcut when their real worry is confidential information walking out the door. If you leave a job and get threatened with a non-compete, look at whether the actual concern is trade secrets rather than general competition. A trade secret claim is a higher bar for the employer: it has to identify specific information that qualifies for protection and show you actually took or used it.

What NRS 613.195 Does Not Cover

The statute defines a “noncompetition covenant” as an agreement between an employer and an employee. That definition draws a line. NRS 613.195 covers only employer-employee relationships. It does not reach arrangements with independent contractors or restrictive covenants signed as part of a business sale or partnership. If you signed a non-compete in that kind of context, a court would likely analyze it under general contract law, not this statute.

The Federal Picture

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a rule that would have banned most non-compete agreements nationwide. A federal district court found the FTC lacked authority to issue the rule and blocked enforcement. The FTC appealed at first, then in September 2025 voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals and accept the rule’s vacatur.⁴ The FTC’s rule is not in effect. State law, including NRS 613.195, remains the primary framework governing these agreements.

Separately, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel issued a memorandum in October 2024 arguing that most non-compete agreements with non-supervisory, non-managerial employees violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act because they discourage workers from seeking better employment. The memo also targets “stay-or-pay” provisions, including training repayment agreements that require an employee to pay the employer back if they leave within a set period. This is enforcement guidance rather than a final Board decision. The NLRB’s jurisdiction does not extend to managers or supervisors, so this development primarily affects lower-level employees, who in Nevada are already partially protected by the hourly-worker ban.

1
Nevada Legislature. Nevada Code 613.195 – Noncompetition Covenants
2
Justia. Golden Road Motor Inn Inc v Islam
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1836 – Civil Proceedings
4
Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule