West Virginia non-compete law: the Reddy test for recruiters

West Virginia has no general non-compete statute, so employee covenants are judged under the rule of reason the Supreme Court of Appeals set out in Reddy v. Community Health Foundation of Man (1982). A covenant that is unreasonable on its face is void and not even partly enforced; one that is inherently reasonable is presumptively enforceable once the employer shows a protectable interest, such as trade secrets, customer lists or an investment in training. The one statute, W. Va. Code 47-11E, limits physician non-competes to one year and 30 road miles and voids them if the employer ends the job. That is the picture as of October 2026.

For a recruiter, West Virginia cases turn on what the candidate actually knows and has, more than on the paper. 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 West Virginia courts apply?

The Court restated the Reddy syllabus points in Huntington Eye Associates, Inc. v. LoCascio (2001), calling the 1982 opinion "seminal." In short:

1. Facially unreasonable means void. A covenant "is unreasonable on its face if its time or area limitations are excessively broad, or where the covenant appears designed to intimidate employees rather than to protect the employer's business," and a court should hold it void "and not undertake even a partial enforcement of it."
2. Inherently reasonable means presumptively enforceable. Such a covenant "is presumptively enforceable in its entirety upon a showing by the employer that he has interests requiring protection from the employee."
3. The employee can rebut. By showing that they have no "trade assets" of the employer to convert, that the trade assets they have belong to them, that the employer could be equally well protected by a narrowed covenant, or that the employer has had time to recoup any extraordinary investment in them.
4. Burdens. The employer proves the covenant's inherent reasonableness and its need for protection; the employee proves an inherently reasonable covenant should not be enforced in its entirety.

In Reddy itself, a 30-mile, three-year covenant in a medical employment contract was not facially unreasonable, and the case went back for a finding on whether the employer had a protectable interest. Whether that interest exists "is a question of fact," the Court said in Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. (1983).

What counts as a protectable interest?

Reddy named the usual cases: an employer that "stands to lose his investment in employee training, have his trade secrets or customer lists converted by the employee, or have his market share threatened by the employee's risk-free entry into the employer's market," with the central question being how far the employee would unjustly enrich himself by using an employer asset he has not paid for. The other side of the line comes from Helms Boys, Inc. v. Brady (1982): skills and information "of a general managerial nature, such as supervisory, merchandising, purchasing and advertising skills" are not protectable.

A recent example: in Special Services Bureau, Inc. v. Friend (memorandum decision, September 9, 2019), a bail bond company's former employee had been trained to answer calls within 20 minutes, attend hearings and keep paperwork complete. The circuit court found no protectable interest, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed without needing to reach the covenant's reasonableness.

What about non-solicitation clauses?

West Virginia treats customer non-solicits, which it calls non-piracy provisions, separately. In Wood v. Acordia of West Virginia, Inc. (2005), the Court upheld a two-year clause barring insurance sales staff from soliciting the agency's customers and the prospects they had contacted. Its test: (1) whether the employer has a protectable business interest, (2) how reasonably and fairly the clause protects it, and (3) whether it unjustly restricts the employee. The employer carries the first two; the employee carries the third. Non-piracy provisions, the Court said, "are less restrictive on the employee and the economic forces of the marketplace."

What are the rules for physicians?

Senate Bill 402, approved by the Governor on April 26, 2017, created W. Va. Code 47-11E. It covers doctors of allopathic or osteopathic medicine fully licensed in West Virginia:

• Limits. Under 47-11E-2, a covenant not to compete is limited to one year and "thirty road miles from the physician's primary place of practice with the employer," and is void and unenforceable "upon the termination of the physician's employment by the employer."
• What survives. Unless the contract says otherwise, 47-11E-3 leaves enforceable clauses barring the taking of property, patient lists or records; repayment of loans, relocation expenses, signing bonuses and recruiting or training costs; nondisclosure; patient and employee non-solicits; and liquidated damages.
• Exemptions. Under 47-11E-4, the limits do not apply where the physician sold the practice to the employer, or to contracts among physician owners.
• Timing. 47-11E-5 applies the article to contracts entered into, modified, renewed or extended on or after July 1, 2017.

We found no comparable West Virginia statute for nurses, physician assistants or other clinicians, so the Reddy test applies to them. Liquidated damages can be large: in LoCascio, the Court reinstated a jury verdict upholding a $650,000 liquidated damages clause (two years' salary) against an ophthalmologist who opened a practice about a mile and a half from his former employer's main office.

West Virginia non-compete rules at a glance

What should a recruiter ask a West Virginia candidate?

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

WEST VIRGINIA CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed a non-compete, a customer non-solicit, or a
    confidentiality agreement with your current or a past employer?"
2. "How long does it last, and what area or customers does it name?"
3. "What did your employer invest in you: formal training,
    certifications, a customer book you were handed?"
4. "Did you leave, or did the employer end the job?"
5. Physicians: "When was the contract signed, renewed or extended, and
    does it have a liquidated damages or repayment clause?"
6. "Has your employer contacted you, or anyone else, about it?"
Always: "We don't want any confidential information, documents or
client lists from your current employer."

• Do not say "West Virginia throws those out." An inherently reasonable covenant is presumptively enforced.
• Do record "two years, 50 miles, signed 2023, sales role with no formal training" rather than an opinion.

What is the risk to the hiring company?

West Virginia has a case that every hiring manager should know, and it cuts both ways. In Voorhees v. Guyan Machinery Co. (1994), a salesman bound by a two-year, 250-mile covenant joined a competitor. His former employer's chairman warned the new employer and threatened to "go to the highest court of the land to enforce it"; the new employer fired him. The jury found the covenant invalid and awarded him $75,000 in compensatory and $75,000 in punitive damages against the former employer for tortious interference. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the former employer had not shown a protectable interest in a salesman whose skills and information were general.

The lessons for a hiring company: a threatening letter is not a ruling, and firing or withdrawing an offer on receipt of one is a decision to make with counsel. The tortious interference test the Court applied, from Torbett, asks whether there was a contract or expectancy, an intentional act of interference by an outsider, harm caused by it, and damages, subject to defenses such as legitimate competition. A new employer that knowingly helps a candidate breach a valid covenant can face the same test. Torbett also says a declaratory judgment action "is a proper way for a restricted employee to test the enforceability" of a covenant. Tell the client before final interviews, let counsel read the agreement before the offer, and confirm at the offer call that the company wants no confidential information.

Is West Virginia changing its non-compete law?

Not as of October 2026. Among the bill titles for the 2024, 2025 and 2026 regular sessions on the Legislature's bill status pages, we found none addressing employee non-competes, and the 2026 regular session has ended. Neighboring states differ: see Virginia non-compete law for a low-wage ban and Ohio non-compete law for a court test with modification.

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 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.

Staffing agencies and their own agreements

The Reddy test applies to covenants your agency asks its recruiters to sign, and Helms Boys is a reminder that general recruiting and sales skills are not a protectable interest on their own. If you employ physicians, article 11E applies to your contracts too. For the other West Virginia rules on a hire, see hiring employees in West Virginia, the West Virginia staffing agency license guide, West Virginia E-Verify requirements and the West Virginia recording consent guide.

A West Virginia checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked of every candidate, in the same words.
• Length, area and customers recorded as written; training and customer-book facts noted.
• Physicians: contract date against July 1, 2017, who ended the job, and any liquidated damages clause.
• Any letter or call from the former employer passed to the client and its counsel, not acted on alone.
• No opinion on enforceability given; candidate pointed to their own lawyer.
• Client told before final interviews; counsel reviews before the offer.