Kansas non-compete law: the Weber test and K.S.A. 50-163 for recruiters

Kansas enforces employee non-competes that a court finds reasonable, under a Kansas Supreme Court test rather than a statute. The test, from Weber v. Tillman (1996) and restated in Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists (2005), asks whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest, whether it unduly burdens the employee, whether it injures the public welfare, and whether its time and territory are reasonable. Non-solicits are different: since July 1, 2025, K.S.A. 50-163 conclusively presumes enforceable an employee's written promise not to solicit the employer's "material contact customers" for up to two years. That is the law as of October 2026; the 2026 bills to change it died in committee.

For a recruiter, Kansas splits the screen in two. A candidate's non-compete is a fact question for the hiring company's counsel; a candidate's customer non-solicit is close to a given. The general screen is in non-compete questions for candidates, and the agency-side clauses are in non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

Does Kansas have a non-compete statute?

Not for non-competes. The statute recruiters hear about is K.S.A. 50-163, part of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, and it deals with non-solicitation and no-recruiting covenants. Its subsection (e)(6) says the act "shall not be construed to apply to" franchise agreements "or covenants not to compete." A true non-compete, one that stops someone working for a competitor, is therefore judged under case law.

The current version comes from Senate Bill 241, which the Kansas Legislature's history shows was approved by the Governor on April 8, 2025. The Revisor's history line for the section reads "L. 2025, ch. 74, § 1; July 1," so the amended text has applied since July 1, 2025. According to the Legislative Research Department's supplemental note, the bill added the list of written non-solicitation covenants that are presumed enforceable, defined "material contact customer," "employee" and "owner," and added the rule that courts must modify an overbroad covenant that is not presumed enforceable.

What test do Kansas courts use for a non-compete?

The syllabus of Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., decided by the Kansas Supreme Court on June 3, 2005, states the rule. A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract "is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare." Only a legitimate business interest may be protected, a covenant whose sole purpose is "to avoid ordinary competition" is unenforceable, and covenants in employment contracts "are strictly construed against the employer." The Court then lists four questions:

1. Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest of the employer?
2. Does the covenant create an undue burden on the employee?
3. Is the covenant injurious to the public welfare?
4. Are the time and territorial limitations reasonable?

Reasonableness "is made on the particular facts and circumstances of each case." The opinion describes Weber v. Tillman (1996) as upholding a covenant that kept a dermatologist from practicing within 30 miles of his former employer's office for two years. There is no Kansas salary threshold, notice period or list of exempt occupations for non-competes.

Which non-solicits does Kansas presume enforceable?

K.S.A. 50-163(c) lists written covenants that are "conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade" when they stay inside these limits:

A "material contact customer," under (g)(2), is any customer or prospective customer "solicited, produced or serviced, directly or indirectly," by the employee, or about whom the employee had confidential business or proprietary information or trade secrets during the relationship. "Owner" includes a current or former owner or seller of any interest in the business, so a candidate who sold equity can be bound for four years, not two. Subsection (c)(7) keeps one door open: the employee or owner may still "assert any applicable defense available at law or in equity."

Will a Kansas court narrow an overbroad covenant?

For covenants inside K.S.A. 50-163, yes. Subsection (b) now says that if a covenant "that is not presumed to be enforceable" is found overbroad or not reasonably necessary to protect a business interest, "the court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief reasonably necessary." That reads as a mandate, not an option.

Example only: a Wichita account manager signed a three-year covenant not to solicit any of the company's customers. That is outside the (c)(5) safe harbor on both length and scope. If a court finds it overbroad, subsection (b) tells it to cut the covenant down and enforce what is left, which may look a lot like the statutory version: material contact customers, for two years.

For true non-competes, the answer is less settled. Because (e)(6) says the act does not apply to covenants not to compete, whether the modify-and-enforce sentence reaches a non-compete is a question for counsel. The case law leans the same way, though: the Idbeis syllabus says it is the duty of courts "to sustain the legality of contracts in whole or in part when fairly entered into, if reasonably possible to do so." Do not tell a client or a candidate that an overbroad Kansas non-compete is void.

Does Kansas limit non-competes for physicians or other health care workers?

Not as of October 2026. Idbeis was brought by thoracic, cardiothoracic and cardiovascular surgeons, and the Kansas Supreme Court applied the same four factors. Its syllabus holds that "a medical employer has a legitimate business interest in referral sources and referral patterns, which warrants protection by a noncompetition agreement"; that an American Medical Association ethics opinion on restrictive covenants "does not impose different requirements than Kansas common law"; and that a physician covenant does not need a liquidated damages or buyout provision to be enforceable. There is no separate statute.

A bill to change that failed in 2026. Senate Bill 504, the proposed Kansas healthcare professional employment mobility and patient access act, would have voided most non-competes for physicians and mid-level practitioners, allowing only a limited restriction during the first 24 months of employment, capped at 15 miles and paired with a buyout. The Legislature's history shows it was introduced on February 11, 2026, referred to the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare, and died in committee on April 10, 2026.

Kansas non-compete rules at a glance

What should a recruiter ask a Kansas candidate?

Ask early in the phone screen, in the same words for every candidate for the role, and write down facts rather than conclusions.

KANSAS CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed a non-compete, a customer non-solicit, an
    agreement not to recruit co-workers, or a confidentiality
    agreement with your current or a past employer?"
2. "How long does each one last after you leave, and what does it
    cover: all customers, or only the ones you worked with?"
3. "Did you ever own part of the business, or sell an ownership
    stake in it?"
4. "Which customers or accounts did you personally handle?"
5. Health care roles: "Which license do you hold, and what radius
    and time does your agreement set?"
6. "Does it say which state's law applies, or where disputes go?"
Always: "We don't want any confidential information, documents or
client lists from your current employer."

• Do not say "non-competes don't hold up in Kansas." Reasonable ones do.
• Do not treat a two-year customer non-solicit as negotiable. Assume it binds and plan the role around it.
• Do record "two-year non-solicit of serviced customers, one-year non-compete within 50 miles, signed at hire" rather than an opinion.

What is the risk to the hiring company?

The realistic outcome of a Kansas dispute is an injunction that keeps the new hire away from certain customers, territory or work for a period, plus a claim for damages where the agreement provides for them. Former employers sometimes also sue the new employer, for example alleging interference with the contract or misuse of confidential information; how that plays out depends on what the new employer knew and did, which is for its counsel.

Kansas adds one risk that is easy to miss: the no-recruit covenant in (c)(4). A hiring manager who asks a new hire to bring their old team is asking that person to breach a covenant Kansas presumes enforceable. Lower the risk by telling the client about every covenant before final interviews, letting counsel review it before the offer, scoping the first months of the role away from restricted customers, and repeating at the offer call that the company wants no confidential information and no help recruiting former colleagues.

Did Kansas change its non-compete law in 2026?

No. Besides SB 504, House Bill 2650 would have made employee non-competes lawful only if reasonably necessary to protect the employer and void on a sale or change in majority ownership of the employer. It was introduced on February 3, 2026, referred to the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development, and died in committee on April 10, 2026. Re-check the Legislature's site when the 2027 session opens.

Where does the federal FTC rule stand?

It does not apply. The FTC's Noncompete Rule page says the rule "is not in effect and it is not enforceable" and notes the August 20, 2024 court order; the Commission voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals and accept the vacatur; and a February 12, 2026 notice removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations. Kansas covenants are governed by Kansas law.

Staffing agencies and their own agreements

K.S.A. 50-163 matters to agencies as employers. A two-year covenant in which your own recruiter agrees not to solicit the clients they worked with, or a covenant not to recruit your consultants, sits inside the statute's presumptions; a broader one invites the modify-and-enforce rule. Client-side terms are a separate question: for conversion fees see temp-to-perm conversion fees, and for no-hire terms between businesses see no-poach agreements and antitrust law.

The Kansas City metro sits on the state line, so a candidate who lives in Kansas may have signed under Missouri law, which has its own employee non-solicit statute; see Missouri non-compete law. For the other Kansas rules on a hire, see hiring employees in Kansas, the Kansas staffing agency license guide and Kansas background check laws.

A Kansas checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked of every candidate, in the same words.
• Each covenant recorded separately: non-compete, customer non-solicit, no-recruit, confidentiality.
• Customer non-solicits checked against the two-year, material-contact safe harbor; owner covenants against four years.
• No assumption that an overbroad covenant is void.
• Hiring manager told not to ask the new hire to recruit former colleagues.
• Health care roles: license, radius and duration captured; re-check for 2027 bills.
• Client told before final interviews; counsel reviews before the offer.