Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • SUPREME COURT NEWS—Justices appear surprised in largely uncontested oral argument on burden of proof for majority-group Title VII plaintiffs
    • AGENCY NEWS—OMB issues guidance on agency RIF and reorganization plans
    • CONTRACT CLAIMS—Conn. App.: Police officers who retired before distribution date not entitled to retroactive wages
    • DISABILITY—DISCRIMINATION—S.D. Tex.: Manager, allegedly harassed because of Tourette’s Syndrome, advances claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—9th Cir.: Postmaster who alleged she was targeted based on Chinese ethnicity gets shot at disparate treatment claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—2d Cir.: Summary judgment against school employee’s request for accommodation from COVID-19 vaccination policy affirmed
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Implementing NY's Retail Worker Safety Act: a new amendment means changes for employers of all sizes
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Noncompete bans—next up: Ohio
    • HOUSE NEWS—Education and Workforce Committee’s hearing highlights tensions about economy, DOGE
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Farm worker union sues DHS after members subjected to ‘unlawful dragnet’
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—New lawsuit filed by non-profit serving women in trades, challenging anti-DEI executive orders as unconstitutional
    • PRIVACY—W.D. Wash.: Military nurse suing Thesis, Nutraceuticals over alleged amphetamine adulteration survives dismissal on most claims
    • STATE-LAW CLAIMS—N.D. Cal.: Court denies San Francisco’s motion to dismiss in Airlines for America healthcare lawsuit
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Noncompete bans—next up: Ohio, (Feb 27, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Foley
    Organizations Mentioned:Foley & Lardner, LLP

    By Taylor Appling of Foley & Lardner

    This month, Ohio joined the list of states with pending legislation to ban noncompetes.* With the FTC noncompete ban blocked on a nationwide basis last year, Ohio lawmakers introduced a bill on February 5, 2025, that would ban noncompete contracts as ...

    By Taylor Appling of Foley & Lardner

    This month, Ohio joined the list of states with pending legislation to ban noncompetes.* With the FTC noncompete ban blocked on a nationwide basis last year, Ohio lawmakers introduced a bill on February 5, 2025, that would ban noncompete contracts as a condition of employment in the state. If enacted as written, Ohio would become the fifth state with such a ban, following California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

    Ohio S.B. No. 11 seeks to prohibit employers from entering into, attempting to enter into, presenting or attempting to enforce an agreement that prohibits or penalizes a "worker" for competing. The law defines "employer" as anyone "who hires or contracts with a worker to perform services for the person." "Worker" is defined very broadly to include employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, and apprentices.

    The Ohio bill goes a step further to address choice of law and forum provisions in employment contracts. It provides that, for agreements entered into or modified after the law's effective date, an employer cannot enforce a non-Ohio venue or forum provision against a worker who primarily resides and does business in the state. Nor can employers deprive such workers of any substantive legal protections provided by Ohio laws, such as through a non-Ohio choice of law provision. There is an exception, however, if a worker is individually represented by counsel to negotiate the agreement and it is the worker who chooses the non-Ohio choice of law or venue.

    Finally, the bill provides a private right of action to employees and authorizes the state attorney general to bring an action against the employer, with costs and fees available to the prevailing worker or attorney general, as well as actual damages, punitive damages up to $5,000, and injunctive relief.

    The Ohio bill does not address confidentiality or non-solicitation agreements. The proposed law is also silent on whether the bill would apply retroactively to invalidate existing noncompete agreements that Ohio employees have already signed with their employers.

    Employers expecting to enter (or those with existing) noncompete agreements with employees in Ohio or any of the other states with pending legislation, bans, or penalties should work with counsel to consider any implications of the pending legislation. We will continue to monitor and report on developments in this area of the law.

    *Maine and Rhode Island failed to pass their respective legislation in April and June 2024, respectively, after their governors vetoed the bills that would have banned all employee noncompetes in those states.

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    Taylor Appling

    Foley & Lardner

    321 North Clark Street, Suite 3000

    Chicago

    United States

    Tel.: +1 312 832 4500

    E-mail: info@foley.com

    URL: www.foley.com/

    (c) Mondaq Ltd., 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: (Foley).

    ExpertInsights: StateLegislation PracticeTip StateLawClaims ContractClaims IndustryNewsTrends

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use