Non-Compete Enforceability Calculator

Only partially. Selecting "Weak / Hostile to Non-Competes" for State Stance subtracts points, but the scoring model still combines it with the other factors rather than treating a hard state ban as an absolute veto. In reality, several states -- California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma among them -- void most employee non-competes by statute essentially regardless of duration, geography, or scope, so a short, narrow agreement in one of those states can still be entirely unenforceable despite scoring well here. Always check your specific state's current statute rather than relying on this score alone.

Courts assessing "reasonableness" generally view a shorter restriction as more likely to protect a genuine business interest (like client relationships or trade secrets) rather than simply blocking a former employee from working, so this model scores six months or less highest, gives a smaller bonus up to a year, treats one to two years as neutral, and penalizes anything longer. There's no universal legal cutoff, though -- some states' courts and statutes treat 1-2 years as presumptively reasonable while others scrutinize even shorter terms.

Consideration is what the employee received in exchange for agreeing to the restriction. Some state courts require something beyond simply continuing an existing at-will job -- a signing bonus, a promotion, or specifically negotiated new compensation -- for a non-compete to be legally binding, especially when it's presented after employment has already started rather than at hiring. This calculator scores continued at-will employment alone as the weakest form of consideration and significant new compensation as the strongest.

No -- this is a directional heuristic built from factors courts commonly cite, not a legal prediction or substitute for an attorney's review of your specific agreement and state law. Actual enforceability also depends on things this model doesn't capture, like the exact wording of the restricted-activities clause, whether the employer can show a genuine protectable interest, and how a specific judge or state's case law has ruled on similar language.