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

New Jersey enforces an employee non-compete to the extent it is reasonable. No New Jersey statute sets the rule; it comes from the state Supreme Court, which asks whether the covenant "simply protects the legitimate interests of the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public" (Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971), applying Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970)). A court that finds a covenant too broad can enforce a narrower version of it rather than striking it entirely.

For how other states treat these agreements, 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 New Jersey case law on employee non-compete agreements and the New Jersey statutes that mention them, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see New Jersey trade secret laws), severance pay (see New Jersey severance pay laws), or covenants made in the sale of a business.

Are non-competes enforceable in New Jersey?

Yes, to the extent they are reasonable. The New Jersey Supreme Court set the modern rule in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970), and restated it a year later in Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971). An employee covenant is generally found reasonable if it "simply protects the legitimate interests of the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public."

The court treats an employee's covenant more strictly than one given by a person selling a business: in Solari, it said an employee covenant is not as freely enforceable. The same opinion also said New Jersey has no policy invalidating all employee non-competes.

No New Jersey statute found for this page sets a salary threshold, a maximum duration or a notice period for non-competes generally. That finding rests on a search of the state's statutes database and the case law, not the Legislature's own statute records. Psychologists and lawyers are covered by profession-specific rules, described below.

What counts as a legitimate employer interest

Whitmyer lists what an employer may protect: trade secrets, confidential business information and customer relationships. Preventing competition as such is not a legitimate interest.

That case also shows how a court approaches a request for a quick injunction. The employer must show the restraint is needed to protect those interests and imposes no undue hardship or public injury. In Whitmyer, the Supreme Court vacated a preliminary restraint based on a five-year covenant covering several states.

What a court does with an overbroad non-compete

New Jersey does not throw out a covenant because one term goes too far, and it does not use the mechanical "blue pencil" method that only crosses out words. Solari explained:

"The enforcement of such a contract does not depend upon mechanical divisibility, meaning that offending portions of the covenant can be lined out and still leave the remainder grammatically meaningful and thus enforceable." Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970)

The court framed the question as "whether partial enforcement is possible without injury to the public and without injustice to the parties." A covenant can therefore be enforced in a narrower form to the extent that is reasonable; in More (below), the court cut back a covenant's geographic area.

There is a limit on that help. Solari said an employer that extracts a deliberately unreasonable and oppressive covenant through superior bargaining power should not receive equitable relief.

Doctors and other health care workers

New Jersey has no statute banning physician non-competes that we found. In Karlin v. Weinberg, 77 N.J. 408 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a restrictive covenant between physicians is not per se unreasonable; it is enforceable to the extent it protects a legitimate interest, imposes no undue hardship and does not injure the public.

In Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 183 N.J. 36 (2005), the court declined to overrule Karlin. It held that a hospital's covenant with a neurosurgeon was not per se unreasonable, but that the 30-mile geographic area was excessive and had to be reduced because it was detrimental to the public interest.

Psychologists are treated differently. In Comprehensive Psychology System, P.C. v. Prince, 375 N.J. Super. 273 (App. Div. 2005), the Appellate Division refused to enforce a psychologist's two-year covenant barring practice within ten miles and the solicitation of patients. It relied on the version of a Board of Psychological Examiners rule, N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16, in effect when the trial court ruled, which barred agreements restricting a psychologist's right to practice after the relationship ended. The court said the rule's 2004 rewording, which bars any business agreement that "interferes with or restricts the ability of a client to see or continue to see his or her therapist of choice," states the same restriction. The court added that the patient-psychologist relationship forbids "any restrictions which might interfere with an ongoing course of treatment."

Lawyers are a separate category. Prince describes Dwyer v. Jung as holding that "restrictive covenants between attorneys are per se unreasonable and unenforceable as injurious to the public interest."

Choice of law and venue

New Jersey courts apply their own public policy to a non-compete even when the contract picks another state's law. In Solari, the covenant was governed by New York law, and the court said:

"Though the law of New York permits partial enforcement as aforestated we must still turn to our own law to determine whether comparable partial enforcement would violate New Jersey's public policy."

We found no New Jersey statute that restricts out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clauses in non-competes, but that search could not include the Legislature's records.

Statutes that mention non-competes

N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8, part of the Law Against Discrimination, voids non-disclosure provisions that would conceal details of discrimination, retaliation or harassment claims. Its subsection (c) then makes clear that it does not reach ordinary non-competes. As enacted in P.L.2019, c.39, it reads:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, this section shall not be construed to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to sign an agreement: (1) in which the employee agrees not to enter into competition with the employer during or after employment; or (2) in which the employee agrees not to disclose proprietary information, which includes only non-public trade secrets, business plan and customer information."

That subsection is a savings clause. It permits non-competes; it does not set any rule for them. We confirmed this wording against the enacted session law, because the Legislature's codified copy did not load.

A second statute protects some temporary workers. Under N.J.S.A. 34:8D-7, part of the Temporary Workers' Bill of Rights, a temporary help service firm may not restrict a temporary laborer in a designated classification placement from accepting a permanent position with the client company or "any other employment"; the firm may charge the client a placement fee capped by the statute.

Non-solicits, confidentiality agreements and trade secrets

The Solari and Whitmyer test applies to restrictive covenants generally, and customer relationships are one of the interests it recognizes. A confidentiality agreement protecting non-public trade secrets, business plans and customer information is expressly preserved by N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(c), while a non-disclosure provision that would conceal details of a discrimination, retaliation or harassment claim is void under subsection (a). Trade-secret protection does not depend on a non-compete; see New Jersey trade secret laws.

Questions this page cannot answer yet

Some common New Jersey questions were not answered by the primary sources we could open, and we would rather say so than guess:

• Signing after you start work. Continued employment can supply the consideration for a covenant signed mid-job (Hogan v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 153 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1977), where the employee kept working about three years after signing). The covenant still has to pass the Solari reasonableness test.
• Fired or laid off. We did not find a New Jersey statute or a decision we read that treats a fired employee differently. In More, the physician's carve-outs for termination without cause came from his own contract, not from a legal rule.
• Agency complaints. We found no state agency that enforces non-compete rules; with no general non-compete statute, disputes are decided in court.

For how New Jersey employment ends in general, see New Jersey at-will employment laws.

Pending New Jersey non-compete bills

S1407 and its identical Assembly bill A1829 (2026-2027 session) would bar employers from seeking any new non-compete from any worker, would bar enforcing existing non-competes against workers who are not senior executives, would let an existing senior executive's non-compete stand only if it meets conditions such as a 12-month limit, and would make no-poach agreements void. Both were introduced and referred to the Senate and Assembly Labor Committees on January 13, 2026, and the Legislature's records show no further action as of October 9, 2026. They are proposals, not law.

A similar bill in the prior session, A5708, was reported by the Assembly Labor Committee on December 4, 2025 and referred to another committee, but went no further. We found no enacted New Jersey non-compete statute from 2024 through 2026 in the statutes database we searched.

The FTC rule and New Jersey

The FTC rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide was set aside by a federal court in Texas 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. It continues to pursue individual employers, including a June 22, 2026 final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. More: FTC non-compete ban struck down.

If you have been asked to sign

Under New Jersey's test, what matters is what the covenant protects and how far it reaches: which customers or information, what territory, and for how long, measured against the hardship to you and any harm to the public. A lawyer licensed in New Jersey can review a specific agreement against Solari and Whitmyer.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about New Jersey non-compete law, including the reasonableness test in Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady and Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle and N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(c), not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. For advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in New Jersey.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in New Jersey?

Yes, to the extent they are reasonable: the covenant must protect the employer's legitimate interests, impose no undue hardship on the employee and not injure the public (Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 1970; Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 1971).

Did New Jersey ban non-competes?

We found no enacted New Jersey ban. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(c) expressly permits non-competes, and bills to ban most of them (S1407/A1829) were introduced in January 2026 but remain in committee, so they are not law.

Can a New Jersey court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Yes. Courts may partially enforce a covenant to the extent it is reasonable, rather than striking it or crossing out words (Solari, 1970), unless the employer deliberately imposed an unreasonable covenant through superior bargaining power.

Are doctor non-competes enforceable in New Jersey?

They are not per se unreasonable (Karlin v. Weinberg, 1978), but courts can reduce their reach; in Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More (2005), a 30-mile restriction on a neurosurgeon was cut back as detrimental to the public interest.

What can a New Jersey non-compete protect?

Trade secrets, confidential business information and customer relationships. Preventing competition by itself is not a legitimate interest (Whitmyer, 1971).

Does a New York choice-of-law clause avoid New Jersey's rules?

Not necessarily. In Solari, the New Jersey Supreme Court applied New Jersey public policy to a covenant governed by New York law.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in New Jersey?

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