In Nevada, non-compete agreements are enforceable, but only within strict limits set by state statute. Under NRS 613.195, a non-compete is void and unenforceable unless it meets four conditions: it is supported by valuable consideration, it imposes no restraint greater than necessary to protect the employer, it does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, and its restrictions are appropriate in relation to the consideration supporting it. Critically, Nevada law flatly prohibits an employer from enforcing a non-compete against any employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis (excluding tips and gratuities). If you earn an hourly wage, your employer generally cannot stop you from going to a competitor, even if you signed a non-compete.
Nevada's Core Rule: NRS 613.195
Nevada is neither a state that bans non-competes outright (like California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) nor one that leaves them to vague common law. Instead, the Legislature wrote specific rules into NRS 613.195, then strengthened protections for workers in 2017 (Assembly Bill 276) and again in 2021 (Assembly Bill 47).
For a non-compete to hold up in Nevada, all four statutory conditions must be satisfied. "Valuable consideration" means you received something of real value in exchange for the restriction. Continued employment alone may count when the agreement is signed at the start of a job, but a court will scrutinize whether the restraint is truly tied to what you received. The reasonableness limits, no greater restraint than necessary, no undue hardship, and a fit between the restriction and the consideration, give Nevada judges substantial power to cut down agreements that overreach.
The Hourly-Worker Exemption
One of Nevada's most important protections came in 2021. NRS 613.195(3) now states that an employer may not bring an action to enforce a non-compete against an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities. This is a near-total shield for hourly employees. If you are an hourly worker and a former employer tries to sue you to enforce a non-compete, the statute directs the court to dismiss that claim, and the court must award you your reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
This protection turns on how you are paid, not your job title or income level. A salaried manager is not covered by this specific exemption, but an hourly technician, server, stylist, or warehouse worker generally is, regardless of how much they earn per hour.
You Can Still Serve Customers Who Come to You
Even where a non-compete is otherwise valid, Nevada law (NRS 613.195(2)) protects your right to keep doing business with former customers under certain conditions. A non-compete may not restrict you from providing services to a former customer or client if all of these are true: you did not solicit the former customer, the customer voluntarily chose to leave and seek your services, and you are otherwise complying with the agreement's limitations on time, geography, and scope. In plain terms, if a client follows you on their own initiative, the law lets you serve them.
Layoffs and Terminations Change the Math
Nevada draws a meaningful line for workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Under NRS 613.195(4), if your employment ends because of a reduction in force, reorganization, or similar restructuring, the non-compete is only enforceable during the period in which your former employer is paying your salary, benefits, or equivalent compensation, including severance. Once those payments stop, the restriction generally cannot be enforced. This prevents an employer from laying you off and then blocking you from finding comparable work without paying you anything.
Nevada Courts Must Revise Overbroad Agreements
Many states will throw out an entire non-compete if it is too broad. Nevada takes a different approach. Under NRS 613.195(6), if an employer sues to enforce a non-compete and the court finds the agreement is supported by valuable consideration but contains restrictions that are unreasonable, overbroad in time, geography, or scope, or that impose undue hardship, the court is required to revise the agreement (often called "blue-penciling") and then enforce it as revised. This means an overbroad clause may not vanish entirely; a judge may narrow it to what the law allows and enforce that narrower version. It is a double-edged feature: it limits abusive terms, but it can also keep a trimmed-down restriction alive.