D.C. Non-Compete Laws (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?

The District of Columbia bans non-competes for most workers. Under D.C. Code 32-581.02, beginning October 1, 2022, no employer may require or request that a covered employee sign an agreement, or comply with a workplace policy, that includes a non-compete provision, and such a provision in an agreement entered into on or after that date is void as a matter of law.

The exception is a highly compensated employee. For 2026, that means an employee earning $162,164 or more, or a medical specialist earning $270,274 or more, according to the D.C. Department of Employment Services (DOES). Even then, the non-compete must meet strict conditions in D.C. Code 32-581.03, including a maximum term of 365 days (730 days for medical specialists). 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 the District of Columbia's Ban on Non-Compete Agreements, D.C. Code 32-581.01 through 32-581.05, as amended by D.C. Law 24-175, plus D.C. Court of Appeals decisions on restrictive covenants, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see District of Columbia trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see District of Columbia severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in D.C.?

For most workers, no. D.C. Code 32-581.02 provides: "Beginning October 1, 2022, no employer may require or request that a covered employee sign an agreement or comply with a workplace policy that includes a non-compete provision." It adds that a non-compete provision violating that rule, in an agreement with a covered employee "entered into on or after October 1, 2022, shall be void as a matter of law and unenforceable."

A covered employee is, in general, an employee who is not highly compensated and whose work is tied to the District: under the definition in D.C. Code 32-581.01, someone who spends more than 50% of their work time for the employer in D.C., or whose employment is based in D.C. and who regularly spends a substantial amount of work time there and not more than 50% in another jurisdiction. Someone who has not yet started work is covered if the employer reasonably anticipates the same facts.

Highly compensated employees can be bound by a non-compete, but only one that meets every requirement of D.C. Code 32-581.03, described below.

Salary thresholds for 2026

The law sets its line by total compensation, and the figure adjusts every year. DOES's 2026 notice states:

"As of January 1, 2026, the restriction on non-compete clauses applies to employees earning less than $162,164 and to medical specialists earning less than $270,274."

The statute starts from base figures of $150,000 and $250,000 and adjusts them each January 1, beginning in 2024, by the prior year's change in the Washington-area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, rounded to the nearest dollar (D.C. Code 32-581.01). DOES publishes the new figures each year. Some older government materials still cite $150,000 and $250,000; those are the unindexed base amounts.

A medical specialist is a highly compensated employee who primarily delivers medical services, holds a license to practice medicine, is a physician, and has completed a medical residency (D.C. Code 32-581.01).

Rules a non-compete for a highly compensated employee must follow

For a non-compete with a highly compensated employee executed on or after October 1, 2022 to be valid and enforceable, D.C. Code 32-581.03 requires that:

• the agreement be in writing and specify the functional scope of the restriction;
• it specify the geographic limits of the restriction;
• its term not exceed 365 calendar days from the date the employee separates from the employer, or 730 calendar days for a medical specialist;
• the employer provide the written provision at least 14 days before the employee starts work or, for a current employee, at least 14 days before the employee must sign it.

Whenever an employer proposes a non-compete to a highly compensated employee, it must also give the employee the notice text set out in D.C. Code 32-581.03a(b), which points the employee to DOES.

Some government materials have said a highly compensated employee can be bound for only one year. That is true for most employees, but the statute allows up to 730 days for medical specialists.

Fired or quit: does it matter?

The statute draws no line between an employee who is fired and one who quits. The 365-day or 730-day limit runs from the date the employee separates from the employer, whatever the reason (D.C. Code 32-581.03).

What is not a non-compete under D.C. law

The definition in D.C. Code 32-581.01 leaves several kinds of provisions outside the ban:

• Sale of a business: a seller's agreement not to compete with the buyer, made in or alongside the sale agreement.
• Confidential information: provisions restricting the disclosure or use of the employer's confidential or proprietary information.
• Moonlighting during employment: an employer may limit an employee from accepting money for work for others while employed if it reasonably believes the outside work will cause disclosure or use of confidential information, conflict with conflict-of-interest rules, amount to a conflict of commitment (for higher-education employees), or impair its compliance with a law, contract or grant.
• Long-term incentives: provisions tied to bonuses, equity and similar pay typically earned over more than one year.

Under D.C. Code 32-581.04a, the law does not supersede the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement. The definitions also exclude casual babysitters and partners in a partnership from "employee," and the D.C. and federal governments from "employer."

If a workplace policy contains any of these excluded provisions, such as a confidentiality rule, the employer must give the employee a written copy within 30 days after the employee accepts employment and whenever the policy changes (D.C. Code 32-581.03a).

Non-solicits and NDAs

The statute targets provisions that bar an employee from performing work for another for pay or from running their own business. Confidentiality agreements are outside the definition, as noted above. Our research did not verify how D.C. treats a customer non-solicitation clause under the statute.

Before the statute, the D.C. Court of Appeals in Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989), a case about a customer non-solicitation covenant, rejected the view that covenants "must be enforceable in whole or not at all" and remanded the case for further consideration.

Broadcast employees

D.C. once had a separate chapter on broadcast-industry non-competes (D.C. Code 32-571 to 32-573); that chapter is repealed, and broadcast workers now fall under the general law. The definition of a highly compensated employee in D.C. Code 32-581.01 is written to exclude a broadcast employee, so on the statute's text a broadcast employee cannot be in the highly compensated group.

Retaliation is prohibited

D.C. Code 32-581.02 protects covered employees from retaliation for refusing to sign a banned non-compete, for an alleged failure to comply with one, for asking, informing or complaining about a provision, and for requesting the information the employer must provide under 32-581.03a.

Highly compensated employees have narrower protection under D.C. Code 32-581.03(b): an employer may not retaliate against them for asking for a copy of a proposed or signed non-compete, asking for the 32-581.03a information, or asking about or objecting to a provision they reasonably believe does not meet the statute's requirements. The statute does not list refusing to sign as protected conduct for a highly compensated employee.

Penalties and how to file a complaint

An aggrieved person may file an administrative complaint with the Mayor or bring a civil action, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (D.C. Code 32-581.04). The statute applies D.C. Code 32-1308 to civil actions, under which an employee who prevails is awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Section 32-1308 sets a 3-year filing period for claims for unpaid wages or liquidated damages under the wage laws it lists; it does not say expressly whether that period governs a non-compete claim, so the deadline for a non-compete civil action is not settled by its text.

Separately, the Mayor may impose administrative penalties of $350 to $1,000 per violation, and not less than $1,000 for a retaliation violation. The law's remedies are cumulative, so they add to remedies available under other law (D.C. Code 32-581.04b).

The Mayor (through the DOES Office of Wage-Hour) and the Attorney General administer and enforce the law. The DOES notice lists owh.ask@dc.gov and 202-671-1880 for questions. The Office of the Attorney General has announced settlements under the law, including one on November 17, 2023 involving Accountable Healthcare Staffing and SPiN, and one on May 30, 2025 involving Equinox and AllCare.

Older agreements and what courts do with an overbroad covenant

The statute's void rule reaches agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2022, the date the law became applicable. D.C. Law 24-175 (the Non-Compete Clarification Amendment Act of 2022), effective September 21, 2022, narrowed an earlier 2021 ban to today's covered and highly compensated structure. The statute says nothing about rewriting a covenant that violates it; such a covenant is simply void and unenforceable.

For restrictive covenants outside the statute, D.C. common law still applies. In Ellis (1989), the D.C. Court of Appeals applied Restatement (Second) of Contracts sections 186 to 188: a restraint is unreasonable if it is greater than needed to protect the employer's legitimate interest, or if that need is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the likely injury to the public. In Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), 177 A.3d 1246 (D.C. 2018), the court wrote, "We join the jurisdictions that have adopted the equitable reformation doctrine," allowing enforcement to the extent a covenant's terms are reasonable, but it held the trial court went too far by expanding the covenant beyond the contract's terms.

Choice of law and where you work

Our research found no choice-of-law or forum provision in D.C. Code 32-581.01 through 32-581.05. Coverage turns on where the employee works under the covered-employee definition, not on which law the contract names. Whether a D.C. court would honor a clause choosing another state's law was not researched.

Pending changes

The D.C. Code's history for the chapter shows no amendment after D.C. Law 24-175. Our research could not search the Council's legislative database for 2025-2026 bills, and a web search found none, which is weak evidence only. The salary thresholds will change again on January 1, 2027, when DOES publishes the new figures.

The FTC rule and D.C. 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 the FTC removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The FTC still acts case by case; on June 22, 2026 it approved a final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. D.C. law therefore supplies the rule. More detail: FTC non-compete ban struck down and our non-compete laws by state guide.

Non-competes and trade secrets

Trade-secret law protects confidential business information whether or not a worker signed a non-compete, and D.C.'s ban expressly leaves confidentiality provisions in place. See District of Columbia trade secret laws.

Questions this page does not answer yet

Our research did not verify the following, so this page states no rule on them: whether the 3-year period in D.C. Code 32-1308 governs a non-compete civil action; whether DOES has issued rules beyond its annual notices; and how D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 treats lawyers. For whether a firing itself was lawful, see District of Columbia at-will employment laws.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the District of Columbia's Ban on Non-Compete Agreements, D.C. Code 32-581.01 to 32-581.05, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. For a specific situation, contact the DOES Office of Wage-Hour, a legal aid office, or a lawyer licensed in the District of Columbia.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes banned in D.C.?

For most workers, yes. D.C. Code 32-581.02 bars employers from requiring or requesting a non-compete from a covered employee, and one in an agreement entered into on or after October 1, 2022 is void as a matter of law.

What is the D.C. non-compete salary threshold for 2026?

As of January 1, 2026, the ban applies to employees earning less than $162,164 and to medical specialists earning less than $270,274, according to DOES.

How long can a D.C. non-compete last?

For a highly compensated employee, no more than 365 calendar days after separation, or 730 days for a medical specialist (D.C. Code 32-581.03).

How much notice must a D.C. employer give before a non-compete?

At least 14 days before the job starts, or for a current employee at least 14 days before they must sign, plus the notice text required by D.C. Code 32-581.03a(b).

Does the D.C. ban cover confidentiality agreements?

No. Provisions restricting disclosure or use of an employer's confidential or proprietary information fall outside the definition of a non-compete in D.C. Code 32-581.01.

What happens if a D.C. employer tries to enforce a void non-compete?

The employee may recover not less than $1,500, and at least $3,000 for a subsequent violation, under D.C. Code 32-581.04.

Who enforces the D.C. non-compete law?

The Mayor, through the DOES Office of Wage-Hour, and the D.C. Attorney General; an employee may also file a civil action (D.C. Code 32-581.04).

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in D.C.?

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; D.C.'s own law still applies.