Ohio non-compete law: the Raimonde test for recruiters

Ohio enforces employee non-competes that are reasonable, under a test set by the Ohio Supreme Court rather than a statute. In Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975) the Court held that a covenant is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than required to protect the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee and is not injurious to the public, and that an overbroad covenant will be enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests. Lake Land (2004) added that continued at-will employment is enough consideration for a covenant signed mid-job. As of October 2026, Ohio has no salary threshold and no health care statute; bills SB 11 and SB 301 are in Senate committees.

For a recruiter, Ohio means a candidate's non-compete will usually be enforced in some form, even if it was signed years into the job with nothing extra in return. The general screen is in non-compete questions for candidates, and the agency-side clauses are in non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

What test do Ohio courts use?

The test comes from the syllabus of Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), which the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2004 in Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. Columber, 2004-Ohio-786. Quoting Raimonde, the Court wrote that a covenant restraining an employee from competing with a former employer "is reasonable if the restraint is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public."

Ohio courts apply that test to the facts: the employee's access to confidential information and customer relationships, how long and how far the restriction runs, whether it reaches only the work the employee did, and whether it would stop the person earning a living in their field. There is no statute setting a pay floor, a notice period or a list of exempt occupations.

Will an Ohio court narrow an overbroad covenant?

Yes, it may. The first syllabus paragraph of Raimonde, also reaffirmed in Lake Land, says a covenant that imposes unreasonable restrictions on an employee "will be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer's legitimate interests." In practice, an Ohio court can shorten the period, shrink the territory or limit the restriction to the customers the employee served, and enforce that version.

Example only: a Columbus territory manager signed a three-year covenant covering Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. A court might enforce it for one year in the counties the manager covered. The candidate is still bound, more narrowly, which is why "that's way too broad" is not a reassurance you can pass to a client.

Does a covenant signed mid-job need new consideration in Ohio?

Not for at-will employees. The certified question in Lake Land was whether continued employment alone is sufficient consideration for a covenant signed after an at-will job began. The Court answered yes: consideration exists when, in exchange for the employee's assent, "the employer continues an at-will employment relationship that could legally be terminated without cause." The employee in that case had signed in 1991 with no raise or change in status and kept working for ten more years.

That is a meaningful difference from states such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina, where a mid-employment covenant generally needs something new; compare Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and for Ohio's northern neighbor, which has a statute, see Michigan. The Court also noted that consideration is only one element; the covenant must still be reasonable.

Does Ohio limit non-competes for physicians or nurses?

Not as of October 2026. Physicians, nurses and other clinicians are judged under the same Raimonde test, where the public-injury factor can weigh more heavily for health care. A bill to restrict some health care covenants is pending:

• Senate Bill 301, titled "Regards noncompete clauses in health care employment contracts," would add section 3727.62 of the Revised Code on noncompete provisions in certain health care professionals' employment contracts with nonprofit hospitals. Introduced October 21, 2025 by Sen. Terry Johnson; referred to the Senate General Government Committee on October 29, 2025, its last action.

Healthcare recruiters should capture the license, whether the employer is a nonprofit hospital, the radius, the duration and the signing date, so counsel can apply whichever rule is in force when the offer goes out.

Ohio non-compete rules at a glance

What should a recruiter ask an Ohio candidate?

Ask early in the phone screen, the same way for every candidate for the role, and write down facts.

OHIO CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed a non-compete, a customer or employee non-solicit,
    or a confidentiality agreement with your current or a past employer?"
2. "How long does it last after you leave, and what territory,
    customers or type of work does it cover?"
3. "When did you sign it: at hiring, or later in the job?"
4. "Which customers or accounts did you personally handle?"
5. Health care roles: "Which license do you hold, and is your
    employer a nonprofit hospital?"
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 tell a candidate "you got nothing for signing it, so it's invalid." In Ohio, continued at-will employment counts.
• Do not ask for confidential documents or detailed customer information.
• Do record "two-year, three-state covenant, signed 2019 mid-employment" rather than an opinion.

What is the risk to the hiring company?

Because Ohio courts can narrow and then enforce a covenant, the realistic outcome of a dispute is an injunction that keeps the new hire away from certain customers, territory or work for a period. 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.

Lower the risk by telling the client about the covenant before final interviews, letting its counsel review it before the offer, scoping the first months of the role away from restricted customers where possible, and repeating at the offer call that the company wants no confidential information.

Is Ohio about to ban non-competes?

Not on the current record. Senate Bill 11 of the 136th General Assembly, titled "Prohibit post-employment agreement restraining career or business," would add sections 4119.01 to 4119.04 of the Revised Code. It was introduced January 22, 2025 by Sens. Blessing and DeMora and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2025; the Legislature's status page shows no action since. The 136th General Assembly's term runs through 2026, so a bill that has not passed by then would have to be reintroduced. Re-check both bill pages before relying on this summary.

Where does the federal FTC rule stand?

It does not apply. The FTC's Noncompete Rule page notes the August 20, 2024 court order; the Commission voted on September 5, 2025 to accede to the vacatur; and a February 12, 2026 notice removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations. Ohio covenants are governed by Ohio law.

Staffing agencies and their own agreements

The same Raimonde and Lake Land rules apply when your agency asks its own recruiters to sign a non-compete or client non-solicit, including one signed mid-employment. Client-side no-hire terms between businesses raise separate antitrust questions; see no-poach agreements and antitrust law. For the other Ohio rules on a hire, see hiring employees in Ohio, the Ohio staffing agency license guide and Ohio background check laws.

An Ohio checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked of every candidate, in the same words.
• Facts recorded: type, length, territory or customers, signing date, governing-law clause.
• No assumption that a mid-employment covenant is invalid.
• Health care roles: license and employer type captured; SB 301 status re-checked.
• No opinion on enforceability given; candidate pointed to their own lawyer.
• Client told before final interviews; counsel reviews before the offer.