In Kansas, non-compete agreements are enforceable, but only when a court finds them reasonable. Kansas has no statute that bans non-competes, sets a wage floor below which they are void, or limits them to certain industries. Instead, Kansas courts apply a four-part common-law test that comes from the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Weber v. Tillman (1996): a covenant not to compete is enforced only if it (1) protects a legitimate business interest, (2) does not impose an undue burden on the employee, (3) is not injurious to the public welfare, and (4) is reasonable in its time and geographic limits. Critically, Kansas is a "blue pencil" state, meaning that if a non-compete is written too broadly, a judge can modify it and enforce a narrower version rather than throwing the whole thing out. That makes Kansas relatively employer-friendly compared with states like California, which voids nearly all employee non-competes.
The Kansas Reasonableness Test
Because there is no Kansas statute governing employee non-competes, your rights come almost entirely from court decisions. When an employer tries to enforce a non-compete, a Kansas judge weighs four questions:
- Does it protect a legitimate business interest? Kansas recognizes interests such as trade secrets, confidential business information, customer relationships and goodwill, and the referral sources a business has built. A non-compete used merely to stop ordinary competition or to keep you from earning a living is not protecting a legitimate interest.
- Does it impose an undue burden on you? Courts look at whether the restriction realistically prevents you from supporting yourself in your field and location.
- Is it injurious to the public? This matters most in fields like health care, where courts consider whether restricting a provider would harm patient access.
- Are the time and territory reasonable? A restriction must be no broader in duration and geographic reach than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest.
Kansas courts have generally treated time limits in the range of a year or two, tied to a defined territory or customer base, as potentially reasonable, but there is no fixed statutory number. Reasonableness depends on the facts of each case, the industry, and the employee's role. Do not assume a specific month or mile figure is automatically valid or invalid.
No Low-Wage Carve-Out in Kansas
Several states (such as Illinois, Washington, and Oregon) have passed laws voiding non-competes for workers below a salary threshold. Kansas has not done this. As of 2026, Kansas has no income-based ban, so in principle a non-compete can be presented to a low-wage or hourly worker. That said, the reasonableness test still applies: a court may find that restricting a low-wage worker who holds no trade secrets and has no special customer relationships protects no legitimate business interest and imposes an undue burden. The lack of a bright-line wage rule means outcomes turn on the specific circumstances, not on a statutory cutoff.
Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality Clauses
Many Kansas employment contracts include non-solicitation clauses (you may compete, but you cannot solicit the employer's customers or employees) and confidentiality or trade-secret clauses. These are generally easier to enforce than a full non-compete because they are less restrictive of your ability to work, but they are still judged for reasonableness. Kansas has also adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which protects genuine trade secrets independently of any contract you sign.
Recent Legal Changes Workers Should Know
The biggest recent development was at the federal level, not in Kansas. In 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide. A federal court in Texas (Ryan LLC v. FTC) set that rule aside in August 2024, so it never took effect. As of 2026, there is no federal ban on non-competes, and Kansas's common-law rules continue to control. The Kansas Legislature has not enacted a statute banning or capping employee non-competes, so the Weber v. Tillman framework remains the law. Because this is an area where bills are introduced from time to time, confirm the current state of the law before relying on it.