Oklahoma non-compete law: 15 O.S. 219A for recruiters

Oklahoma takes a different route from the outright bans in California, Minnesota and North Dakota. It voids contracts that restrain a lawful profession, trade or business, and then says what an employee non-compete can still do: stop the former employee from directly soliciting the former employer's established customers, and nothing more. An employee who signed a non-compete "shall be permitted to engage in the same business" as the former employer. Separately, Oklahoma expressly allows clauses that stop employees from recruiting away their colleagues. For a recruiter, the questions that matter are about customers and colleagues, not about whether the candidate may take the job at all.

General screening questions are in non-compete questions for candidates. The agency-side clauses, including employee non-solicits in your own recruiters' agreements, are in non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

The four sections that work together

• Section 217: "Every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, otherwise than as provided by Sections 218 and 219 of this title, or otherwise than as provided by Section 2 of this act, is to that extent void." The "Section 2 of this act" is what became section 219A.
• Sections 218 and 219: exceptions for someone who sells the goodwill of a business, and for partners on or in anticipation of a partnership's dissolution. Both limit the area to a specified county and contiguous counties, or a specified city or town.
• Section 219A, added in 2001, deals with employee non-competes.
• Section 219B, added in 2013, deals with non-solicitation of employees and contractors.

Section 219A, word for word

A. A person who makes an agreement with an employer, whether in writing or verbally, not to compete with the employer after the employment relationship has been terminated, shall be permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer as long as the former employee does not directly solicit the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services from the established customers of the former employer.

B. Any provision in a contract between an employer and an employee in conflict with the provisions of this section shall be void and unenforceable.

Three phrases carry the weight: "same business ... or a similar business" (the employee may compete), "directly solicit" (the only conduct the clause may reach) and "established customers" (whose business is protected). A clause that bars working for a competitor at all runs against the section's first sentence. Whether a clause reaching other conduct, such as accepting business a customer brings unprompted, goes further than the statute allows is a question for the courts on the facts.

The 2024 amendment that did not happen

In 2024 the Legislature passed SB 1543, which would have changed "directly solicit" to "solicit, directly or indirectly, actively or inactively," dropped the word "established" and added "independent contractors" alongside customers. The bill history on the Legislature's site records that it was vetoed on April 30, 2024. The text on OSCN still shows the 2001 version above. Summaries online that quote the broader 2024 wording are describing a bill that did not become law. The Legislature's compiled Title 15 used for this page is dated December 2025; check for any 2026 session change before relying on it.

Employee non-solicits: section 219B

Section 219B says a provision that "prohibits an employee or independent contractor of a person or business from soliciting, directly or indirectly, actively or inactively, the employees or independent contractors of that person or business to become employees or independent contractors of another person or business shall not be construed as a restraint" on a lawful profession, trade or business, and that sections 217, 218, 219 and 219A do not apply to it. It took effect November 1, 2013.

This matters for recruiters twice. A candidate may have a clause that stops them from recruiting former colleagues after they join a client, and Oklahoma's restraint-of-trade sections do not void it. And an agency's own recruiters may be bound by the same kind of clause. In both cases the clause is judged under ordinary contract law, not under 219A.

What it means for a placement

Questions for Oklahoma candidates

Fold these into your normal screen, using the same wording for every candidate in the role. The phone screen questions page shows where they fit.

OKLAHOMA CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed a non-compete, a non-solicit, or a confidentiality
    agreement with your current or a past employer?"
2. "Does it restrict contacting clients or customers? Which ones:
    everyone, or only ones you worked with?"
3. "Does it restrict recruiting or hiring your current colleagues?"
4. "How long does each part last after you leave?"
5. "Was any of it signed as part of selling a business?"
6. "Could the hiring company's lawyer see it, as far as the agreement
    allows?"
Always: "We don't want client lists, pricing or any confidential
information from your current employer."

What to avoid:

• Telling the candidate "non-competes don't hold up in Oklahoma." The customer carve-out and section 219B both survive, and the agreement may name another state's law.
• Asking the candidate which customers they could "bring," or to name them. That invites exactly the solicitation the statute permits an employer to restrict, and it puts confidential information in your notes.
• Suggesting the candidate have clients "reach out first." That is advice about how to work around an agreement.

For agencies and in-house teams

Oklahoma's rules apply to your own agreements as well as your candidates'. An agency that asks its recruiters to sign a non-compete gets, at most, what section 219A allows: a restriction on directly soliciting established customers after they leave. A clause stopping a departing recruiter from taking colleagues with them is a section 219B question instead. If your recruiter agreements were drafted for another state, have counsel compare them with these sections.

On the client side, record what you learn about a candidate's restrictions in the submittal as plain facts, such as "12-month restriction on directly soliciting current employer's customers; signed 2022," and leave the conclusion to the client and its lawyer. A client that learns about a customer restriction after the offer has every reason to ask why it was not in the submittal.

Federal status

As of October 2026 there is no federal non-compete ban. The FTC's Noncompete Rule page notes the August 20, 2024 court order stopping enforcement; the Commission voted on September 5, 2025 to accede to the vacatur, and the rule was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations by a February 12, 2026 notice. The FTC still acts against individual employers, as with Rollins, Inc. in April 2026.

Checklist

• Customer restrictions and colleague restrictions recorded separately.
• Sale-of-business agreements identified and flagged.
• No list of the candidate's current customers collected or kept.
• No enforceability opinion and no advice on avoiding "solicitation."
• Agency recruiter agreements reviewed with counsel; licensing checked in the Oklahoma staffing agency license guide.
• OSCN text re-checked after each legislative session.