Nevada: Rules for Restrictive Non-Compete Agreements Change Again

Now, AB 276 emphasizes the need for employers to carefully consider restrictive non-compete agreements.  Specifically, non-compete agreements will be considered unenforceable unless they meet specific conditions:

1. The agreement is supported by valuable consideration;
2. The agreement does not impose greater restraints than is required for the protection of the employer;
3. The agreement does not impose undue hardship on the employee; and
4. The agreement imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the non-compete agreement.

In terms of “valuable consideration,” continued employment has historically be considered sufficient consideration.  However, in light of #4 of the above list of conditions, employers may need to carefully review non-compete agreements to ensure that there is enough consideration, besides continued employment, offered in order to balance out particularly restrictive agreements.

Where the bill changes course from the previous Supreme Court decision is an additional provision stating that a court will be required to “blue pencil” any agreement that imposes undue hardship on employees. Thus, employers with overly broad non-compete agreements may be able to modify agreements in court and then enforce the revised edition, rather than the whole agreement being rendered invalid.

Action Items

1. Review the text of AB 276 here.
2. Review non-compete agreements with legal counsel, if applicable.
3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.