In this series, we will explore some of the ways states vary from one another in their employment laws.

Last week, I highlighted the extremes: California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have outright bans on non-compete agreements, while Florida openly embraces them. This week, we'll look at states that fall somewhere in between. These states allow non-compete agreements, but limit their enforceability to higher earners by setting salary thresholds. If an employee earns less than the threshold, the agreement is unenforceable.

The District of Columbia sets the highest threshold: employees cannot be bound by a non-compete clause unless they earn at least $154,200 per year. (If that sounds like a high bar, DC initially planned to ban all non-compete agreements, so this law could have been even more restrictive for employers). Other six-figure thresholds include Colorado ($127,091), Oregon ($116,427), and Washington ($123,394.17). Although Illinois’ employment laws have shifted sharply toward the pro-employee side in recent years, its $75,000 threshold looks relatively employer-friendly by comparison. Virginia ($76,081.20), Maine ($62,600), Maryland ($46,800), Rhode Island ($39,125), and New Hampshire ($30,160) also impose salary thresholds.

Enforcement is further complicated by the fact that many of these thresholds are moving targets. Some states raise the threshold annually, while others adjust it less frequently. Others tie their threshold to the minimum wage, which means it rises automatically as the minimum wage increases. Employers should therefore confirm the current threshold before drafting a new non-compete agreement and consider including language that accounts for possible increases before the restriction is enforced.