Ohio Non-Compete Agreement Template
Draft an enforceable Ohio non-compete under the common-law reasonableness standard of Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, the controlling 1975 Ohio Supreme Court decision, since Ohio has no non-compete statute.
AI-generated draft for review. Not legal advice. Starting at $19.
Legal Requirements in Ohio
A non-compete is enforceable only to the extent reasonable: no greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests, not imposing undue hardship on the employee, and not injurious to the public (Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975)).
The covenant must protect a legitimate business interest such as trade secrets, confidential information, or customer goodwill, not merely shield the employer from ordinary competition.
The restraint must be reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and the activities restricted, judged on the facts of each case.
Continued at-will employment can constitute adequate consideration in Ohio (Lake Land Emp. Group v. Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242 (2004)).
Ohio has no statute capping non-competes or setting a salary threshold; enforceability is determined entirely by courts under common law.
Key Statutes & Regulations
- Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (1975) (rule of reasonableness; judicial modification)
- Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242, 2004-Ohio-786 (continued at-will employment as consideration)
- Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. 1333.61 et seq. (1994) (related trade-secret protection)
- Note: Ohio has enacted no statute restricting employee non-competes as of 2026
Common Pitfalls
- •Drafting an overbroad covenant assuming a court will always rewrite it; some Ohio courts now decline to reform agreements they find unreasonable or oppressive.
- •Restraining ordinary competition rather than tying the covenant to trade secrets, confidential information, or customer relationships.
- •Using a one-size-fits-all national duration and geography without tailoring to the employee's actual role and market.
- •Assuming a federal rule applies; Ohio is governed solely by case law.
Local Terminology
- Rule of reasonableness
- The Raimonde standard under which an Ohio non-compete is enforced only to the extent it is reasonable in scope, duration, and geography and serves a legitimate interest.
- Raimonde test
- The three-part inquiry: (1) no greater than necessary to protect the employer's interest, (2) no undue hardship on the employee, and (3) not injurious to the public.
- Blue pencil / modification
- Ohio's judicial power to narrow an overbroad covenant (duration, geography, or activities) rather than void it outright, under Raimonde.
- Legitimate business interest
- A protectable interest such as trade secrets, confidential information, or customer goodwill that justifies a restraint.
How Ohio Differs
Unlike threshold states, Ohio has no salary floor and no statute, so even modestly paid employees can be validly bound if the restraint is reasonable.
Ohio courts apply a 'rule of reasonableness' and will modify (not merely strike) an overbroad covenant to make it enforceable, going beyond the strict blue-pencil approach.
Continued employment of an at-will worker is sufficient consideration, which many states reject.
Recent appellate decisions show some Ohio courts declining to rewrite covenants they view as drafted in bad faith, signaling reform is not guaranteed.
There is no statutory notice, review period, or garden-leave requirement, unlike Illinois, Colorado, or Massachusetts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are non-competes enforceable in Ohio?
▾
Yes. Ohio has no statute restricting non-competes, so they are enforceable under the common-law reasonableness standard from Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975). A court will enforce a covenant that is no broader than necessary, does not unduly burden the employee, and is not injurious to the public.
Will an Ohio court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?
▾
It can. Under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, Ohio courts may modify an overbroad covenant, trimming its duration, geography, or scope, to make it reasonable and enforceable. However, recent appellate rulings show some courts now decline to reform agreements they find unreasonable, so careful drafting matters.
Is continued employment enough consideration in Ohio?
▾
Yes. In Lake Land Employment Group v. Columber (2004), the Ohio Supreme Court held that an employer's continued at-will employment of an existing worker is sufficient consideration to support a non-compete, unlike in states such as Illinois that require additional value or a minimum tenure.
Does the FTC ban affect Ohio non-competes?
▾
No. The FTC's 2024 rule was vacated in Ryan LLC v. FTC and removed from federal regulations in February 2026. Ohio non-competes are governed entirely by state common law, principally Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, since Ohio has enacted no non-compete statute.
Ready to Create Your Non-Compete Agreement?
Describe your deal in plain English. Three AI agents draft, review, and refine your non-compete agreement for Ohio.
Get StartedAI-generated draft for review. Not legal advice.