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

Non-competes can be enforced in Kansas, but only if they are reasonable. No Kansas statute bans or limits employee non-competes. The Kansas Supreme Court held in Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996), that a non-compete tied to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare.

The one Kansas statute on employee covenants, K.S.A. 50-163, was amended in 2025, but it expressly leaves covenants not to compete out. It regulates non-solicitation agreements instead. 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 Kansas common law on employee covenants not to compete (Weber v. Tillman, 1996, and related Kansas Supreme Court decisions) and the non-solicitation rules in K.S.A. 50-163, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Kansas trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Kansas severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Kansas?

For most workers, yes, if a court finds the covenant reasonable. The rule comes from case law, not a statute. In Weber v. Tillman, the Kansas Supreme Court set out four factors a court weighs:

Two limits run through the cases. Kansas courts construe non-competes in employment contracts strictly against the employer (Weber). And an employer's wish to avoid ordinary competition is not a legitimate interest on its own; customer contacts are (Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn, 222 Kan. 666, 567 P.2d 1371 (1977)).

What Kansas courts have upheld

The Kansas Supreme Court decisions in the research give a sense of how the factors play out in practice:

• A dermatologist, two years and 30 miles. The court upheld the covenant in Weber v. Tillman (1996).
• One year and 50 miles. The court affirmed enforcement of the covenant as modified in Eastern Distributing (1977).
• Surgeons. In Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755, 112 P.3d 81 (2005), the court applied the Weber factors and concluded the covenants were enforceable. It affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

These outcomes turned on their own facts. They are examples of the analysis, not limits that apply to every agreement.

No salary threshold or statutory time limit

Kansas has no income threshold for non-competes. Our research found none in K.S.A. 50-163 or in the cases read, and there is no Kansas statute requiring advance notice, a chance to consult a lawyer, garden-leave pay, or a maximum length or territory for an employee non-compete.

A non-compete signed after you start the job can still be binding. In Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Richter, 8 Kan. App. 2d 311, 657 P.2d 589 (1983), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that continued employment should not as a matter of law be disregarded as consideration for a covenant not to compete, and that whether there was enough consideration is ordinarily a question of fact.

Doctors and other health care workers

No Kansas statute restricts physician non-competes. Courts apply the same Weber factors. In Idbeis, the Kansas Supreme Court said patient choice is an appropriate public-welfare consideration, and that American Medical Association ethics guidance on patient choice is no different from the common-law reasonableness requirement.

A 2026 bill would have changed this. SB 504, the Kansas healthcare professional employment mobility and patient access act, would have voided non-competes restricting post-employment patient care by physicians and mid-level practitioners. It was introduced February 11, 2026 and died in committee on April 10, 2026. It is not law.

What a Kansas court does with an overbroad non-compete

Kansas courts can trim rather than strike. In Eastern Distributing, following its earlier decision in Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714, 215 P.2d 133 (1950), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a court may reduce an overbroad territory and enforce the covenant to that extent. Weber follows the same approach.

K.S.A. 50-163(b) also says that when a covenant not presumed enforceable under subsection (c) is overbroad, "the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests." That subsection sits in the restraint of trade act, which excludes non-competes, so for a non-compete the case-law modification rule is the one that applies.

Fired or quit

No Kansas statute treats a non-compete differently when the employer fires or lays off the worker. Our research did not establish whether Kansas case law does, so this page states no rule. For Kansas's general rule on ending employment, see Kansas at-will employment laws.

Non-solicitation agreements under K.S.A. 50-163

Since the 2025 amendments, Kansas law gives certain non-solicitation covenants a strong presumption. Under K.S.A. 50-163(c), a written covenant meeting the statute's terms is conclusively presumed enforceable:

The co-worker provision is written with "or," so on a literal reading either condition is enough. The presumption is not the end of the matter. Under K.S.A. 50-163(c)(7), an employee or owner "shall be permitted to assert any applicable defense available at law or in equity."

K.S.A. 50-163 does not address confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements.

Penalties and who enforces

There is no state agency to complain to about an employee non-compete. The Kansas attorney general enforces the restraint of trade act (K.S.A. 50-163(d)(5)), but the act does not apply to covenants not to compete (K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6)). Non-compete disputes are private civil cases decided in court.

Our research found no Kansas statute that awards damages, attorney fees or a penalty against an employer that tries to enforce an unreasonable non-compete.

Recent and pending changes

Bills for the 2027 session were not checked.

The FTC rule and Kansas non-competes

The FTC's nationwide non-compete ban 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 rule was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The FTC still acts against individual employers, as in a final order approved June 22, 2026 requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. See FTC non-compete ban struck down.

What this page does not answer

Our research did not verify Kansas rules on these points, so this page states none:

• whether a firing or layoff changes the analysis;
• whether a Kansas court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause in an employee covenant.

If you have been asked to sign

In Kansas, the questions are whether the restriction protects a legitimate interest such as customer contacts, how much it burdens you, whether it harms the public, and whether the time and territory are reasonable. A non-solicit may fall under the stronger statutory presumption in K.S.A. 50-163(c). A lawyer licensed in Kansas can review a specific agreement.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Kansas trade secret laws
• Kansas severance pay laws
• Kansas at-will employment laws

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Kansas non-compete law under Weber v. Tillman (1996) and related decisions and K.S.A. 50-163, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Kansas non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Kansas.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Kansas?

They can be. Under Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457 (1996), a non-compete tied to employment is enforceable if it is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare, and courts construe it strictly against the employer.

Does Kansas have a non-compete statute?

Not for non-competes. K.S.A. 50-163(e)(6) says the Kansas restraint of trade act does not apply to covenants not to compete; the 2025 amendments to that section deal with non-solicitation covenants.

How long can a Kansas non-compete last?

No Kansas statute caps it. Courts judge time and territory for reasonableness; the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a two-year, 30-mile covenant in Weber v. Tillman (1996) and a one-year, 50-mile covenant as modified in Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn (1977).

Will a Kansas court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

It can. Eastern Distributing Co. v. Flynn (1977) holds that a court may reduce an overbroad territory and enforce the covenant to that extent.

Is a two-year customer non-solicit enforceable in Kansas?

K.S.A. 50-163(c) conclusively presumes enforceable a written employee covenant not to solicit material contact customers that lasts no more than two years after employment ends, though the employee may still raise any defense available at law or in equity under (c)(7).

Are physician non-competes banned in Kansas?

No. No Kansas statute restricts them, and courts apply the Weber factors, considering patient choice as part of the public welfare (Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, 279 Kan. 755 (2005)). SB 504, a 2026 bill to void them, died in committee on April 10, 2026.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Kansas?

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