Restrictive Covenants and Trade Secrets
J Barrow Legal advises Ohio employers on non-compete, non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements, trade secret protection and the hiring of senior talent from competitors.
Ohio has no general non-compete statute. Enforceability instead turns on court-made reasonableness standards, so a covenant copied from a template, another company or another state may protect far less than the business assumes.
The legal landscape is also shifting. Although the FTC's nationwide ban never took effect, the agency now pursues individual employers, and Ohio lawmakers have introduced bills that would ban or limit non-competes. Employers that pair narrowly drawn covenants with disciplined trade secret practices are better positioned, whatever happens next.
We review existing covenants by role, location and signing date, then right-size duration, geography and restricted activities to the interest each covenant protects.
We pair covenants with confidentiality, non-solicitation and invention assignment terms, supported by practical controls such as access limits and exit procedures.
We review a candidate's agreements before an offer is made, set onboarding guardrails so that no prior-employer information enters the business, and prepare the company for a possible demand letter.
We evaluate departures quickly, preserve evidence, and pursue or respond to TRO and injunction proceedings in Ohio courts. We also assess whether litigation is commercially justified, weighing the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of obtaining meaningful injunctive relief, the cost of enforcement and the potential for business disruption.
Jazmyn Barrow advises businesses on the drafting, enforcement and defense of restrictive covenants, including disputes litigated in Ohio courts. Her work addresses key employee departures, competitive hiring, confidentiality obligations and the protection of customer relationships. She evaluates enforceability in light of the available evidence and the company's commercial objectives, helping management distinguish matters that warrant immediate enforcement from those better addressed through tailored restrictions or negotiated resolution.
A restriction must protect a legitimate business interest. Ohio courts evaluate whether a non-compete is reasonable in scope and appropriately protects the employer's business interests. The breadth of a restriction is no substitute for enforceability.
Different interests call for different protections. Non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality obligations, trade secret protections and carefully tailored non-competes each serve a distinct purpose, and a coordinated strategy may be more defensible than reliance on any single restrictive provision.
A key departure calls for an evidence-based response. When a key employee leaves for a competitor, the employer should promptly evaluate the employee's contractual obligations, access to confidential information, customer activity and the available evidence before deciding how to proceed.
Hiring from a competitor creates risk for the new employer. A business that hires experienced employees from a competitor should review their existing restrictions and establish appropriate onboarding safeguards before any dispute arises.
Enforcement should make business sense. Injunctive relief may be necessary in some matters, but before pursuing litigation, an employer should weigh the evidence, the potential harm, the anticipated cost, the timing and the likelihood of obtaining meaningful relief.
Yes, when they are reasonable. Ohio courts apply the Raimonde test, under which a restriction must be no greater than necessary to protect the employer, must not impose undue hardship on the employee and must not harm the public. When a covenant is overbroad, a court may enforce it only to the extent it is reasonable.
No. A federal court set aside the rule in August 2024, the FTC moved to dismiss its appeal in September 2025, and the rule was removed from the federal regulations in February 2026. The FTC continues, however, to bring cases against specific employers under the antitrust laws, so broad, company-wide non-competes still carry federal risk.
Generally, yes, for at-will employees. In Lake Land Employment Group of Akron v. Columber (2004), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that continued at-will employment is sufficient consideration for a non-compete. The covenant must still be reasonable, however, and pairing it with a meaningful benefit can make it easier to defend.
No, not as of early October 2026. Senate Bill 11 would void most post-employment non-competes, and Senate Bill 301 would limit them for certain health care practitioners, but neither has been enacted. Employers should monitor both bills and avoid relying on a non-compete as their only form of protection.
Before making an offer, the employer should obtain and review the candidate's agreements and, where possible, shape the role to avoid restricted activity. It should also instruct the new hire in writing not to bring or use any former employer's confidential information. Documenting those steps becomes important if a demand letter or lawsuit later follows.
Current as of October 2026.
Share a few details about your situation, and we’ll follow up to discuss fit, timing, and next steps.