Connecticut Non-Compete Laws (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?

Non-competes are enforceable in Connecticut if they are reasonable. No Connecticut statute governs employee non-competes in general, so for most workers the rule comes from the courts: under Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976), a post-employment restraint must be reasonable, affording only fair protection to the employer without interfering with the public's interests.

Statutes then set firmer rules for specific jobs. Physicians, physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses face one-year and fifteen-mile caps; covenants against home-care workers are void; and security guards and broadcast employees have their own protections. Connecticut has no salary threshold, and the general non-compete bills of 2024, 2025 and 2026 did not become law. For how other states compare, see our non-compete laws by state guide.

Information last verified on 2026-10-08. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Connecticut's common-law reasonableness test for employee non-competes and the occupation-specific statutes in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-14p, 20-12k, 20-101d, 20-681, 31-50a and 31-50b, plus a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Connecticut trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Connecticut severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Connecticut?

They can be, if a court finds them reasonable. In Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a post-employment restrictive covenant is valid only if it is partial and restricted in operation as to time or place, and only if it is reasonable. In the court's words, the covenant "should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public."

The Appellate Court later restated the test as five criteria in New Haven Tobacco Co. v. Perrelli, 18 Conn. App. 531 (1989), cert. denied, 212 Conn. 809 (1989):

1. the length of time the restriction is in effect;
2. the geographic area it covers;
3. the degree of protection it gives the employer;
4. the restriction on the employee's ability to pursue his or her occupation;
5. the extent of interference with the public's interests.

The court called the test "disjunctive, rather than conjunctive; a finding of unreasonableness in any one of the criteria is enough to render the covenant unenforceable."

Connecticut sets no maximum length or territory for general employees; courts decide case by case. In Scott, the court upheld a five-year, statewide restriction on managing a competing business, on findings that the employee's knowledge of the employer's customer list threatened its business. In New Haven Tobacco, a two-year covenant not to deal with the employer's customers was reasonable even without an explicit geographic limit, because the employer's market was local. Those results turned on their facts and do not set a general rule.

Jobs with their own non-compete rules

We found no Connecticut statute on non-competes for dentists, nurses other than APRNs, or veterinarians, so the common-law test applies to them.

Physicians

Section 20-14p sets a three-part validity test for physician covenants:

"A covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: (A) Necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; (B) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such business interest; and (C) otherwise consistent with the law and public policy." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p

The party seeking to enforce the covenant bears the burden of proving it is reasonable. For covenants entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, a physician covenant:

• may not restrict competitive activities for more than one year, or in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where the physician practices;
• is unenforceable if the employment contract expires and the employer does not make a bona fide offer to renew on the same or similar terms, unless the covenant was made in anticipation of a partnership or ownership agreement;
• is unenforceable if the employer ends the relationship other than for cause;
• must be separately and individually signed by the physician.

For covenants entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after October 1, 2023, there is another trigger. A covenant is unenforceable if the physician does not agree to a proposed material change to the compensation terms at extension or renewal and the employer then lets the contract expire or ends it other than for cause. That rule does not apply to a group practice of 35 or fewer physicians that is majority-owned by physicians.

When a covenant falls under § 20-14p, the remaining provisions of the contract stay in full force, including any damages provision for termination.

Physician assistants and APRNs

Public Act 23-97 extended physician-style protections to two more professions for covenants entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after October 1, 2023.

Under § 20-12k, a physician assistant's covenant is capped at one year and fifteen miles, is unenforceable if the employer ends the relationship other than for cause or lets the contract expire without a bona fide renewal offer, is subject to the compensation-change rule, and must be separately signed. The group-practice exemption that applies to physicians is not repeated in § 20-12k.

Under § 20-101d, an advanced practice registered nurse's covenant must meet the same legitimate-business-interest test, is capped at one year and fifteen miles, is unenforceable if the employer ends the relationship other than for cause or lets the contract expire without a bona fide renewal offer, is subject to the compensation-change rule, and must be separately and individually signed. Like § 20-12k, it does not repeat the physician group-practice exemption.

Home-care workers

Section 20-681 is a flat ban: "Any covenant not to compete is against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable." The definition in § 20-670(4) covers an agreement restricting an individual's right to provide companion, home health or homemaker services in any geographic area of the state for any period of time, or to a specific individual. That last part reaches a clause barring a worker from continuing to serve a particular client.

Security guards and broadcast employees

Under § 31-50a, an employer may not require a security guard (Standard Occupational Classification 33-9032) to agree not to work in the same or a similar job at the same location for another employer or as a self-employed person, unless the employer proves the guard obtained trade secrets as defined in § 35-51(d). The section applies to agreements entered into, renewed or extended on or after October 1, 2007. An aggrieved person may sue in Superior Court for damages and injunctive or equitable relief, and the Labor Commissioner may ask the Attorney General to sue for restitution and injunctive relief.

Under § 31-50b, a broadcast industry employer's contract may not require a broadcast employee to "refrain from obtaining employment in a specified geographical area for a specified period of time after termination of employment." It also may not require the employee to disclose offers from other broadcasters or to accept matching renewal terms. The section applies to contracts entered into, renewed or extended on or after July 1, 2007, and a violation supports a civil action for damages, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Lawyers

Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 bars a lawyer from participating in offering or making an agreement that "restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement." It also bars such a restriction as part of settling a client controversy.

Fired, laid off or quit

For general employees, the reason the job ended does not decide the question. In Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 279 Conn. 745 (2006), the Connecticut Supreme Court quoted its earlier decision in Robert S. Weiss & Associates v. Wiederlight, 208 Conn. 525 (1988), that reasonableness "does not turn on whether the employee ... left his position voluntarily or was dismissed by the employer."

The clinician statutes are different. A covenant is unenforceable against a physician, physician assistant or APRN when "the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause" (§§ 20-14p, 20-12k, 20-101d).

Forfeiture-for-competition clauses

Some agreements do not bar competition outright but take away a benefit if the worker competes. In Deming, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a clause of that kind, which was in essence a restrictive covenant, had to be analyzed for reasonableness under the same test, and that its reasonableness could not be decided as a matter of law in that case.

What a court does with an overbroad covenant

Connecticut courts can separate a covenant only in limited cases. Deming quoted Beit v. Beit, 135 Conn. 195 (1948): "Severance is permissible only in the case of a covenant which is in effect a combination of several distinct covenants." So a covenant written as several distinct restrictions may be enforced in part, while one written as a single restriction is not split up by the court. For physicians, PAs and APRNs, the statutes keep the rest of the contract in force when the covenant fails.

Non-solicitation agreements and NDAs

No Connecticut statute governs customer non-solicitation covenants for general employees; courts apply the same reasonableness test, as New Haven Tobacco did with a two-year customer covenant. For home-care workers, § 20-670(4) reaches covenants limiting service to a specific client. The employee-covenant statutes we read do not address confidentiality agreements.

Choice of law, consideration and enforcement

Our research did not establish whether Connecticut limits out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clauses in employee non-competes, or what consideration Connecticut requires for a covenant signed after hire. This page states no rule on either.

Apart from the security-guard statute, no state agency enforces non-compete rules; disputes are decided by the courts. The physician, PA, APRN and home-care statutes we read contain no express damages or fee-shifting provision for the worker.

Recent and pending bills

Connecticut lawmakers have considered general non-compete limits three years running. None became law.

The last enacted change was Public Act 23-97, which created §§ 20-12k and 20-101d and added the physician compensation-change rule. We found no 2025 or 2026 Public Act amending any of the six sections on this page: the 2026 Supplement to the General Statutes does not include them. That is a weak negative, because a provision inside a broader health-care bill could be missed and 2026 Public Acts are not yet compiled in a supplement.

The FTC rule and Connecticut non-competes

The FTC's nationwide non-compete rule never took effect. A federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024 (Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, N.D. Tex.); the FTC voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals and removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The agency still acts against individual employers, as with a June 22, 2026 final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. See FTC non-compete ban struck down and our non-compete laws by state guide.

Non-competes and trade secrets

Trade-secret law protects an employer's confidential information whether or not a worker signed a non-compete; the security-guard statute even makes trade secrets the condition for a covenant. See Connecticut trade secret laws.

Questions this page does not answer yet

Our research did not verify these points, so this page states no rule on them:

• whether Connecticut limits out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clauses in employee non-competes;
• whether continued employment is enough consideration for a covenant signed after hire;
• any 2025 or 2026 Connecticut appellate decision changing the reasonableness test;
• whether Connecticut regulates employee no-poach agreements.

If you have been asked to sign

For most jobs, the questions are the five reasonableness factors: how long, how far, what the employer is protecting, how much the covenant limits your work, and whether it harms the public. If you are a physician, PA, APRN, home-care worker, security guard or broadcast employee, the statute for your occupation sets firmer limits. A lawyer licensed in Connecticut can review a specific agreement.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Connecticut trade secret laws
• Connecticut severance pay laws
• Connecticut at-will employment laws
• FTC non-compete ban struck down

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Connecticut non-compete law, including the common-law reasonableness test and Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-14p, 20-12k, 20-101d, 20-681, 31-50a and 31-50b, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. For a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Connecticut; security guards may also contact the Connecticut Labor Commissioner.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Connecticut?

They can be, if reasonable. For most workers, Connecticut courts apply the common-law test from Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976); statutes add firmer rules for physicians, PAs, APRNs, home-care workers, security guards and broadcast employees.

How long can a non-compete last in Connecticut?

For general employees there is no fixed limit; courts judge length case by case as one of five reasonableness factors. Physician, PA and APRN covenants are capped at one year (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-14p, 20-12k, 20-101d).

Did Connecticut ban non-competes in 2026?

No. HB 5492 (2026) was tabled for the House calendar on April 2, 2026, with no later action and no Public Act number recorded, so it is not law.

Are physician non-competes enforceable in Connecticut?

Only within Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p: for covenants on or after July 1, 2016, no more than one year and fifteen miles from the primary practice site, separately signed, and unenforceable if the employer ends the relationship other than for cause.

Does a Connecticut non-compete apply if I was fired?

For general employees, reasonableness does not turn on whether the employee quit or was dismissed, as the Connecticut Supreme Court noted in Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 279 Conn. 745 (2006). For physicians, PAs and APRNs, the covenant is unenforceable if the employer ends the relationship other than for cause.

Is there a salary threshold for non-competes in Connecticut?

No. Connecticut law sets no income threshold for general employees; the 2026 bill that would have added one, HB 5492, is not law.

Can a home health aide in Connecticut be bound by a non-compete?

No. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-681 makes any covenant not to compete for homemaker, companion and home health services void and unenforceable, including one limiting service to a specific client.

Can a Connecticut court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Only in a limited way. As quoted in Deming, severance is permissible only for a covenant that is in effect a combination of several distinct covenants (Beit v. Beit, 135 Conn. 195 (1948)).

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Connecticut?

No. A federal court set the FTC rule aside on August 20, 2024, and the FTC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.