Isabella TorresYour employer just handed you a non-compete agreement. Do you sign it? Can they even enforce it in Illinois? The answer turns on two numbers — $75,000 and $45,000 — and a 2021 law that rewrote the rules for restrictive covenants in the state. Illinois now draws a sharp line between non-compete agreements (hardest to enforce), non-solicitation clauses (easier, but still restricted), and trade secret protections (still legitimate). Getting this wrong can cost an employee a new job opportunity, or cost an employer a six-figure legal battle over an unenforceable clause.
This guide compares what Illinois allows and prohibits, maps the key differences between non-competes and non-solicitation clauses, and shows how Illinois's approach stacks up against other states.
What the 2022 Illinois Freedom to Work Act Changed
Before January 1, 2022, Illinois non-compete law was primarily judge-made common law: courts evaluated enforceability on a case-by-case basis using a reasonableness test that considered duration, geographic scope, and the employer's legitimate business interest. Results were inconsistent, and low-wage workers were regularly presented with — and signed — agreements that courts would often struggle to void.
The Illinois Freedom to Work Act (820 ILCS 90/), substantially amended in 2021 and effective January 1, 2022, ended that uncertainty with statutory bright lines:
- Non-compete agreements are void and unenforceable unless the employee earns more than $75,000 per year in total compensation (salary + bonuses + commissions).
- Non-solicitation agreements (covering clients, customers, or co-workers) are void unless the employee earns more than $45,000 per year.
- Both thresholds rise by $5,000 every five years: reaching $80,000 and $50,000 respectively in 2027, $85,000 and $55,000 in 2032.
- Employers must provide the employee with at least 14 days to review the agreement and must advise the employee in writing to consult an attorney. Failure to do so makes the agreement void — regardless of whether the employee earned enough.
- The agreement must be supported by adequate consideration beyond mere continued employment: typically at least two weeks of additional employment, a bonus, or other tangible benefit at signing.
The Illinois Attorney General gained new enforcement authority under the 2021 amendments — the AG can now investigate and sue employers who impose illegal non-competes on workers, not just courts adjudicating private claims.
Non-Compete vs. Non-Solicitation: Illinois Draws a Clear Line
Illinois law distinguishes sharply between two types of restrictive covenants — a distinction that matters enormously for workers across income levels.
| Feature | Non-Compete Agreement | Non-Solicitation Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| What it restricts | Working for competitors, starting a competing business | Contacting former clients, recruiting co-workers |
| Salary floor | $75,000/year | $45,000/year |
| Below-floor status | Void — unenforceable by law | Void — unenforceable by law |
| 2027 salary floor | $80,000/year | $50,000/year |
| 14-day review required | Yes | Yes |
| Written attorney advice required | Yes | Yes |
| Adequate consideration required | Yes | Yes |
| AG can enforce violations | Yes | Yes |
| Duration typically enforced | 1-2 years (courts skeptical beyond 2) | 1-2 years |
| Geographic scope | Must be reasonable (tied to employer's actual market) | Usually client-specific, no geographic limit needed |
The practical impact: a customer service representative earning $42,000 per year cannot be bound by either type of restriction. A sales manager earning $80,000 may be bound by a non-solicitation clause but not a non-compete if they earn exactly $80,000 — the non-compete floor is $75,000, but courts scrutinize duration and scope before enforcing even eligible agreements.
"We've seen a significant drop in enforcement attempts since 2022 — employers now know that presenting a non-compete to a $50,000 worker is not just unenforceable, it potentially triggers AG scrutiny. The law has genuinely changed behavior." — Labor law perspective, Chicagoland Business Law Practice Group, 2024
When Illinois Courts Will and Won't Enforce a Non-Compete
Even if the salary threshold is met and the procedural requirements are satisfied, Illinois courts will not rubber-stamp a non-compete agreement. They evaluate three additional factors:
1. Legitimate business interest. The employer must show a genuine protectable interest beyond just keeping the employee away from competitors — typically trade secrets, confidential customer relationships, or highly specialized training provided by the employer at significant cost. A non-compete protecting "general industry knowledge" that any employee could gain at any employer is not enforceable.
2. Reasonable duration. Illinois courts are skeptical of agreements exceeding 24 months. A two-year restriction following a brief period of employment often fails. Most enforced agreements are in the 12-18 month range for specialized roles.
3. Reasonable scope. The geographic restriction must match the employer's actual business operations. A Chicago restaurant chain cannot enforce a nationwide non-compete on a regional manager. A software company with global clients may have more latitude. The restriction must be proportionate to the role — a junior analyst's agreement cannot have the same scope as a CEO's.
Blue-penciling is limited: Illinois courts can modify ("blue-pencil") an overly broad non-compete to make it enforceable, but they use this remedy sparingly. If an agreement is fundamentally unreasonable, Illinois courts are more likely to void it entirely than rewrite it to be reasonable.
For context on how another major state handles these restrictions — including the near-total ban California imposes — the Florida non-compete law guide provides a useful comparison of how different legal frameworks balance employer and employee interests.
À retenir: An Illinois non-compete that meets the salary floor, observes the 14-day review requirement, and provides adequate consideration is still only presumptively valid — courts will strike it if the duration, scope, or protected interest is unreasonable. Employees below $75,000 can disregard these agreements entirely: they are void by statute, not merely voidable.
Employer Obligations When Presenting a Non-Compete
The procedural requirements added in 2022 are not advisory — they are conditions of enforceability. An employer who fails any of these steps renders the agreement void regardless of salary:
- Provide the agreement at least 14 days before the start date (for new hires) or 14 days before the required signing date (for existing employees).
- Advise the employee in writing to consult with an attorney of their choice before signing.
- Provide adequate consideration beyond at-will continued employment — at minimum, at least two weeks of additional employment, a signing bonus, pay increase, or other tangible benefit.
- The restriction must be ancillary to a valid, enforceable contract.
Employers who present non-competes to workers below the salary threshold face potential investigation by the Illinois Attorney General. The AG may seek injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties. Post-2022 enforcement actions have targeted healthcare staffing agencies and franchise operators that used blanket non-compete policies without income screening.
This article provides general legal information only. Because non-compete enforceability depends heavily on specific facts, consult a licensed Illinois employment attorney before signing or enforcing any restrictive covenant. Illinois Department of Labor resources are available at labor.illinois.gov.
Illinois Non-Compete Law Compared to Other States
Illinois occupies a middle position in the national spectrum of non-compete law — stricter than most states but not as restrictive as California, which voids nearly all non-compete agreements regardless of salary.
| State | Non-Compete Allowed? | Key Restriction |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Yes, for $75,000+ earners | Salary floor, 14-day review, AG enforcement |
| California | Effectively no | Void in almost all circumstances for employees |
| New York | Yes, with court scrutiny | No salary floor; reasonableness test; proposed $75k bill pending |
| Florida | Yes, broadly | Employer-friendly; statutory presumption of validity |
| Texas | Yes | Must be ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement |
| Washington | Yes, for $100,000+ earners | Highest salary floor in the U.S. as of 2020 |
For multi-state employers with Illinois operations, this table illustrates why a uniform national non-compete policy is legally perilous: an agreement valid in Florida may be void in Illinois, and void in Illinois may be criminal to impose in California (which added penalties for employers who present non-competes to California workers). Illinois-specific review of all restrictive covenant agreements is mandatory before deployment.
