Charles JacksonBefore 2023, Nevada non-compete law gave employers considerable latitude: covenants were enforceable if they met basic tests of reasonableness, consideration, and legitimate business interest. That baseline still exists — but Senate Bill 190 (2023) drew a bright categorical line that most employment attorneys describe as the most significant shift in Nevada's non-compete framework in decades. The question for Nevada workers and HR teams today is not whether non-competes are valid in Nevada — they can be — but whether a specific employee falls inside or outside the new protective boundary.
This comparison maps what Nevada non-compete law looked like before SB 190, what changed, which covenants are still enforceable, and what practical steps each side should take.
Before SB 190: Nevada's Pre-2023 Non-Compete Standard
Nevada has restricted non-compete agreements since at least the 1980s under NRS § 613.200 and its predecessors. Under the pre-SB 190 framework, a non-compete covenant was enforceable if it satisfied four cumulative conditions:
- Legitimate protectable interest — employer had to show a genuine interest in protecting trade secrets, specialized training, or customer relationships developed during employment
- Reasonableness in scope — the geographic territory and duration had to be proportionate to the actual business interest
- Consideration — the employee must have received something in exchange (initial employment, a raise, a promotion)
- Not broader than necessary — courts would judicially modify (blue-pencil) covenants that were overbroad rather than voiding them outright
Under this framework, a Las Vegas casino could enforce a 2-year, Nevada-wide non-compete against a VP of Player Development on the theory that the employee had access to confidential VIP client data — a recognized protectable interest. The same casino would struggle to enforce that covenant against a cocktail server.
After SB 190: Nevada's 2023 Reform
Senate Bill 190 added a categorical protection to NRS § 613.195 that operates regardless of the traditional four-part test: no non-compete agreement is enforceable against an employee who earns at or below 150 percent of the state minimum wage.
At Nevada's 2026 minimum wage of $12.00/hour, the threshold is $18.00/hour or approximately $37,440 per year for full-time workers. Employees at or below that earnings level are completely exempt from non-compete enforcement. The covenant is void — not just unenforceable in this instance, but invalid as a matter of law. No garden-leave payment and no evidence of irreparable harm can revive it.
SB 190 also added two procedural requirements that apply to all non-competes, regardless of wage level:
- Employers must provide a written copy of the agreement to the employee within 30 days of signing
- Employers must provide a written explanation of the legitimate business reason for the restriction at the time the covenant is signed
Failure to comply with either procedural requirement gives the employee grounds to challenge enforceability before ever reaching the substantive four-part test.
Enforceable vs. Unenforceable: The Post-SB 190 Framework
| Factor | Pre-SB 190 Standard | Post-SB 190 Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Wage protection | None — all employees subject to coverage | Categorical exemption: ≤ $18/hr (2026) = void |
| Four-part test | Required for all agreements | Still required for above-threshold employees |
| Consideration | Required | Required |
| Written explanation | Not required | Mandatory at time of signing |
| Copy to employee | Not required | Required within 30 days |
| Blue-penciling | Courts could modify to make enforceable | Courts retain discretion — but categorical exemptions are not modifiable |
| Garden leave | No requirement | Courts increasingly condition injunctions on pay continuation |
The practical result: A significant percentage of Nevada's non-exempt workforce — hourly employees in retail, food service, logistics, hospitality — earns below the $18.00/hour threshold and is categorically protected. A covenant signed by a $15.00/hour casino food-service worker before SB 190 passed is now unenforceable.
Geographic and Duration Limits Still Apply Above the Threshold
For employees earning above $18.00/hour, Nevada courts continue to apply the pre-existing reasonableness tests — SB 190 did not eliminate them. Recent Nevada district court decisions suggest the following ranges are defensible:
- Duration: 12–24 months is generally accepted for management and specialized technical roles; 36 months is challenged without strong justification; anything exceeding 36 months faces high scrutiny
- Geographic scope: Statewide Nevada covenants are defensible for senior employees who worked across the state; national or international restrictions require evidence of the employer's actual nationwide competitive market
- Functional scope: Must correspond to the employee's actual duties — a restriction barring a financial controller from "any work in finance" in Nevada would likely be overbroad
Nevada courts also retain the authority to blue-pencil overreaching covenants — reducing the duration, geography, or functional scope to make them enforceable rather than voiding them outright. However, SB 190's categorical exemptions cannot be blue-penciled: if the employee is below the wage threshold, no judicial modification rescues the covenant.
Practical Implications for Nevada Employers and Employees
For employers: Audit every existing non-compete agreement. If any current or former employee covered by an active covenant now earns (or at the time of signing, earned) at or below the $18.00/hour threshold, seek legal counsel before attempting enforcement. Courts that discover an employer has enforced a covenant against a protected employee may award attorney's fees and sanctions. When onboarding new employees above the threshold, ensure the written explanation of legitimate business interest is specific — "protect trade secrets" without specificity will not suffice.
For employees: If you signed a non-compete earning at or below the 2026 wage threshold of $18.00/hour, that covenant is almost certainly void under Nevada law. You are not legally required to honor it, though you should consult with a Nevada employment attorney before assuming complete freedom — some covenants also include non-disclosure or non-solicitation provisions that may survive even if the non-compete itself is unenforceable.
Nevada's approach contrasts meaningfully with neighboring states. Florida has among the most employer-favorable non-compete law in the U.S., with statutory presumptions of enforceability. Maryland also caps enforceability for lower-wage workers but at a different threshold. Nevada's SB 190 framework represents a deliberate policy choice to protect hourly workers in its hospitality and service economy.
Verdict: Nevada non-competes are enforceable for higher-wage employees who meet the four-part test — but SB 190 has created a categorical exemption that protects most hourly workers. Before signing or enforcing any non-compete in Nevada, both parties should confirm which side of the $18.00/hour threshold applies.
Legal notice: This article provides general legal information about Nevada non-compete law and does not constitute legal advice. Non-compete enforceability is highly fact-specific — consult a licensed Nevada employment attorney before signing or attempting to enforce a covenant not to compete.
The Garden-Leave Trend in Nevada Courts
A development worth watching in Nevada non-compete litigation is the growing judicial expectation that employers seeking injunctive relief pay the restricted employee during the enforcement period — known as a garden-leave arrangement. While Nevada law does not explicitly mandate garden leave, Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court (Clark County) has issued several unreported rulings conditioning temporary restraining orders on the employer's agreement to continue paying the employee's base salary during the restricted period.
The logic is equitable: an injunction that prevents a $60,000-a-year employee from working in their field while the litigation resolves imposes immediate, concrete harm. Courts applying the balance-of-hardships test increasingly find that requiring garden-leave payments neutralizes that harm and makes the injunction appropriate.
For employers, this means the cost-benefit analysis of non-compete enforcement has changed. Obtaining a 12-month injunction against a departing regional sales manager earning $80,000/year may now require committing to $80,000 in salary payments during enforcement — before the merits of the covenant are even adjudicated. Many Nevada employers who would have pursued injunctions reflexively under the pre-SB 190 framework now settle or decline to pursue enforcement once they recognize the garden-leave exposure.
For employees covered by above-threshold non-competes, this shift provides meaningful practical leverage. If the employer is unwilling to pay garden leave, they may be unwilling to litigate at all — making the non-compete effectively unenforceable as a practical matter even if it is technically valid on paper.
Nevada's non-compete landscape sits alongside a broader Nevada labor law framework — including the dossier's coverage of New Jersey non-compete law for employers with multi-state workforces — that rewards employers who draft covenants narrowly and enforce them only when the business interest genuinely justifies the cost.
