South Carolina non-compete law: the five-part test, no blue pencil and recruiters

South Carolina has no general statute on employee non-competes, so the South Carolina Supreme Court's five-part test applies: a covenant must be necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest, reasonably limited in time and place, not unduly harsh on the employee's efforts to earn a living, reasonable as a matter of public policy, and supported by valuable consideration. Courts construe covenants against the employer, a covenant signed after the job began needs something more than continued employment, and a court will not rewrite an overbroad clause: it must "stand or fall on [its] own terms." As of October 2026, a bill to void physician non-competes, H. 4767, passed the House in March 2026 but has not become law.

For a recruiter, South Carolina rewards precise fact-gathering. When the candidate signed, what they got for signing, and the exact territory written in the clause can each decide whether it holds, and none of them can be fixed later by a judge. The general screen is in non-compete questions for candidates, and the agency and client clauses are in non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

What test do South Carolina courts use?

The five elements come from Rental Uniform Service of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley (S.C. 1983), as quoted by the Court of Appeals in Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC (2017). A covenant is enforceable if it:

1. is necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer;
2. is reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place;
3. is not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood;
4. is reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and
5. is supported by a valuable consideration.

Covenants "will be critically examined and construed against the employer," as the Supreme Court put it in Poole (below). On territory, Dudley said "a geographic restriction is generally reasonable if the area covered by the restraint is limited to the territory in which the employee was able, during the term of his employment, to establish contact with his employer's customers," as quoted in Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas (S.C. Ct. App. 2011). On time, Fay notes that restrictions of three years (Dudley) and two years have been approved as reasonable.

Is a non-compete signed mid-job valid in South Carolina?

Only with new consideration. In Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc. (S.C. 2001), an at-will travel agent was asked three and a half years into the job to sign a covenant and says she was told she had to sign to stay employed. Her duties, position and salary did not change. The Supreme Court adopted the rule that "when a covenant is entered into after the inception of employment, separate consideration, in addition to continued at-will employment, is necessary in order for the covenant to be enforceable," and held hers unenforceable.

Two contrasts from the same opinion: a covenant signed at the start of at-will employment is supported by the employment itself, and a covenant signed 13 years into a job was upheld where the employee received "a change in duties, change in pay, and change in position." That is why "when did you sign it, and what changed when you did?" is one of the most useful questions you can ask a South Carolina candidate. Compare North Carolina, which takes a similar view, with Ohio, where continued at-will employment is enough.

Will a South Carolina court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

No. In Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc. (S.C. 2010), a trial court replaced a 75-mile territory with Greenville County plus 15 miles and enforced it. The Supreme Court reversed: "in South Carolina, the restrictions in a non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties' agreement, but must stand or fall on their own terms."

Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc. (S.C. 2005) goes further. The covenant there had no geographic limit and chose New Jersey law, which allows blue-penciling. The Court held it could not be reformed "so as to add an entirely new term to which neither of the parties agreed," that it was "void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy," that no damages could be recovered for breaching a void covenant, and that a court could not extend its term.

Does another state's law in the agreement change the answer?

Not past South Carolina public policy. Stonhard says terms "may be construed according to the law of another state. But if the resulting agreement is invalid as a matter of law or contrary to public policy in South Carolina, our courts will not enforce the agreement." In Fay, the trial court applied Ohio law to an Ohio logistics company's agreement; the Court of Appeals held that its nondisclosure provisions, which in effect kept the employee from ever working in a similar role for a competitor, "operated as noncompete provisions with no reasonable time restriction" and violated South Carolina public policy.

Genuine trade secret clauses are different. Under S.C. Code 39-8-30(D), a contractual duty not to disclose or use a trade secret "must not be considered void or unenforceable or against public policy for lack of a durational or geographical limitation," and under 39-8-30(B) employees owe that duty even without a written agreement.

South Carolina non-compete rules at a glance

What should a recruiter ask a South Carolina candidate?

Ask early in the phone screen, in the same words for every candidate for the role, and record facts.

SOUTH CAROLINA 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, and what territory, customers or type of
    work does it name?"
3. "Did you sign it when you were hired, or later?"
4. If later: "Did anything change when you signed: pay, title, duties
    or a bonus?"
5. "Does it say which state's law applies or where disputes go?"
6. Physicians: "Are you an owner or partner, and would you owe back a
    signing bonus or relocation costs?"
Always: "We don't want any confidential information, documents or
client lists from your current employer."

• Do not tell a candidate "you signed it mid-job, so it's void." Whether something changed is a factual question for counsel.
• Do not ask for documents the agreement marks confidential, or for detail on the employer's customers.
• Do record facts, for example "two-year covenant naming three counties, signed 2021 with a promotion and raise, Georgia law clause," rather than an opinion.

What is the risk to the hiring company?

Because South Carolina courts do not narrow covenants, a dispute tends to be all or nothing: a well-drafted clause is enforced as written, and a flawed one fails. Former employers also rely on trade secret claims, which the Trade Secrets Act supports without any time limit, and sometimes sue the new employer, for example alleging interference with the contract; how that plays out depends on what the new employer knew and did, which is for its counsel. Tell the client about the covenant before final interviews, let counsel see it before the offer, keep the new hire away from restricted customers or territory if the clause may hold, and repeat at the offer call that the company wants no confidential information.

Is South Carolina changing its non-compete law?

Two bills are on the record in the 2025 to 2026 session; neither is law as of October 2026.

• H. 4767, the Physician Noncompete Contract Prohibition Act. It would add Chapter 9 to Title 41 to make "any restriction on the ability of a physician to practice medicine in any geographic area for any period of time" after the relationship ends impermissible, unenforceable and void, protect patients' choice, and require notice to patients of a departure. It would still allow repayment of relocation, signing and retention bonuses and recruiting, education or training costs by a physician who leaves within three years, if itemized in the written agreement, and protection of trade secrets and confidential information. It would apply to contracts or renewals entered into on or after its effective date. The House passed it on March 25 and 26, 2026 (65-50 and 58-53), and the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee reported it favorably on May 5, 2026; the status page shows no action since.
• H. 3273. It would make any covenant not to compete between a nonprofit corporation located in South Carolina with annual gross revenue over $1 billion and its current or former employees null and void. It was referred to the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee on January 14, 2025 with no later action.

Healthcare recruiters should capture the license, ownership status, radius, duration and signing date so counsel can apply whichever rule is in force when the offer goes out.

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 notes the August 20, 2024 court order; the Commission voted 3-1 on September 5, 2025 to accede to the vacatur; and a February 12, 2026 notice removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC still brings individual cases, such as Rollins in April 2026.

Staffing agencies and their own agreements

Poole applies to your own firm: if you ask a recruiter who is already on staff to sign a covenant, give them something new for it and write down what it was, and draft the territory to match where they actually work, because no court will fix it later. Client-side no-hire terms raise separate antitrust questions; see no-poach agreements and antitrust law. For the rest of a South Carolina hire, see hiring employees in South Carolina, the South Carolina staffing agency license guide, E-Verify requirements in South Carolina, South Carolina background check laws, South Carolina drug testing laws, the South Carolina recording consent guide and employer of record in South Carolina. For the neighbor to the south, see Georgia.

A South Carolina checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked of every candidate, in the same words.
• Facts recorded: type, length, named territory, signing date, what changed at signing, governing-law clause.
• Confidentiality clauses noted too; broad ones may be treated as non-competes.
• Physicians: H. 4767 status re-checked before each offer.
• No opinion on enforceability given; candidate pointed to their own lawyer.
• Client told before final interviews; counsel reviews before the offer.