# Non Compete in Wyoming — What 6 Law Firms Say
## Authorities relied on
**Primary law:** [Senate File 107 (Enrolled Act No. 87)](https://wyoleg.gov/2025/Enroll/SF0107.pdf)
**Case law:** [Brown v. Best Home Health & Hospice, LLC](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9998787/jennifer-brown-fka-jennifer-stringer-nora-youngren-and-carol-wolfe-v/); [Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc.](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9998715/jorge-malave-v-western-wyoming-beverages-inc-a-wyoming-corporation/); [Hassler v. Circle C Resources](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9998701/charlene-hassler-v-circle-c-resources/)
**Law firm commentary:** [Ogletree Deakins](https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/wyoming-enacts-law-to-restrict-the-use-of-noncompete-agreements/) · [Littler Mendelson](https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/wyoming-bans-non-compete-covenants-some-exceptions) · [Faegre Drinker](https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2025/3/wyoming-enacts-significant-restrictions-on-noncompete-agreements) · [Fisher Phillips](https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/new-law-voids-most-wyoming-non-compete-agreements.html) · [Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck](https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/wyoming-adopts-statutory-limits-for-noncompetes)
_Last verified April 14th, 2026._
## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Wyoming?
For contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, usually no. W.S. 1-23-108(a) says any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for skilled or unskilled labor is void unless it fits one of four statutory exceptions.[[1]](#fn-1) Ogletree,[[5]](#fn-5) Faegre,[[7]](#fn-7) Littler,[[6]](#fn-6) Fisher Phillips,[[8]](#fn-8) and Holland & Hart all describe that as a broad ban rather than a narrow drafting rule.
Because the statute applies to "any person," Wyoming-specific firm analyses also read it broadly enough to reach independent contractors, not only employees.[[10]](#fn-10)[[11]](#fn-11)[[12]](#fn-12) That remains an interpretation rather than a Wyoming appellate holding, but it is the dominant state-specific reading in the 2025 firm commentary.
## What law governs agreements signed before July 1, 2025?
Section 2(b) of the 2025 act says nothing in the statute alters, amends, or impairs contracts entered into before July 1, 2025, so older covenants continue to be judged under Wyoming common law rather than the new statutory ban.[[13]](#fn-13)
That older framework is still demanding. *Malave*[[3]](#fn-3) restates the traditional Wyoming elements: the covenant must be in writing, part of a contract of employment, supported by reasonable consideration, reasonable in duration and geography, and not against public policy. *Brown*[[2]](#fn-2) and *Malave* also emphasize that Wyoming strictly construes non-competes and puts the burden on the employer to prove special circumstances making the restraint reasonably necessary. For post-hire covenants, *Brown* says continued employment alone is insufficient consideration; the employer must provide separate contemporaneous consideration.
## Can Wyoming courts blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad covenant?
No. In *Hassler*,[[4]](#fn-4) the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the blue-pencil rule is no longer permitted to make non-compete agreements reasonable, overruled *Hopper* on that point, and concluded that the entire agreement there was void because its duration and geography were unreasonable.
> [!PRACTICE-CAUTION]
> That no-blue-pencil rule applies both to legacy agreements and to post-2025 covenants drafted to fit a statutory exception.[[14]](#fn-14) Wyoming-specific commentary warns employers not to assume a court will rescue overbroad drafting by trimming it back later.
## What restrictions remain available after July 1, 2025?
The statute leaves four categories in play: sale-of-business covenants, covenants protecting trade secrets as defined by W.S. 6-3-501(a)(xi), capped repayment provisions for relocation, education, and training expense, and covenants with executive and management personnel and their professional staff. The expense-recovery schedule is fixed by tenure: up to 100% for service under two years, up to 66% for between two and less than three years, and up to 33% for between three and less than four years.[[15]](#fn-15)[[16]](#fn-16)
> [!PRACTICE-CAUTION]
> Even inside the statutory exceptions, Wyoming-specific commentary does not treat enforcement as automatic. Holland & Hart warns that Wyoming employers still need a legitimate business fit and reasonable drafting, while Littler says the practical breadth of the trade-secret exception remains uncertain and may depend on how courts understand the relationship between trade-secret protection and post-employment restraint.[[17]](#fn-17)
## How does Wyoming treat customer non-solicitation covenants?
Not clearly. Brownstein takes the employer-friendly view that the new statute leaves customer non-solicitation covenants intact.[[9]](#fn-9)
> [!PRACTICE-CAUTION]
> Fisher Phillips still warns that Wyoming courts must decide whether customer nonsolicitation covenants are really prohibited non-compete covenants under the new text.[[18]](#fn-18)
## How does Wyoming treat employee non-solicitation covenants?
Littler says the absence of an express non-solicit exception leaves employee non-solicitation covenants unclear under the new statute.[[19]](#fn-19)
> [!PRACTICE-CAUTION]
> The cleaner practical read is that employee nonsolicits are not clearly safe in Wyoming and should be treated as unsettled if they function as de facto non-competes.[[20]](#fn-20)
## How does Wyoming treat confidentiality and nondisclosure covenants alongside non-competes?
Usually yes at a basic level, but not without qualification. Brownstein's more employer-friendly view is that confidentiality and nondisclosure covenants remain intact,[[21]](#fn-21) but Fisher Phillips warns that broad confidentiality provisions may still be treated as prohibited non-compete covenants under the new text.[[22]](#fn-22)
## What special rules apply to physicians in Wyoming?
Section 1-23-108(b) separately voids any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership, or corporate agreement between physicians that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine upon termination, while leaving the rest of the agreement enforceable if otherwise valid. Section 1-23-108(c) then allows a departing physician to disclose continuing practice and new professional contact information to rare-disorder patients without liability to the prior counterparty.
The hard part is the phrase "between physicians." Littler and Holland & Hart both note that this wording creates a textual question about contracts with hospitals or other non-physician entities,[[23]](#fn-23) so the cleaner statement is that Wyoming clearly voids physician-to-physician practice restraints and leaves the outer edge of physician-employer application less certain.
## Who qualifies as executive or management personnel in Wyoming?
The statute does not define executive, management, professional staff, or the combined executive-and-management personnel category. Faegre flags that drafting gap directly,[[24]](#fn-24) and Fisher Phillips and Holland & Hart both say Colorado cases construing nearly identical older statutory language may offer nonbinding guidance.[[25]](#fn-25)
Those sources focus on actual responsibilities rather than titles alone.[[26]](#fn-26) The recurring factors are supervision, autonomy, hiring or firing authority, and whether the employee plays a meaningful role in implementing executive or management functions. Until Wyoming courts speak directly, that function-over-title approach is the most defensible reading.
## Firm Consensus
Ogletree,[[27]](#fn-27) Littler,[[28]](#fn-28) Faegre,[[29]](#fn-29) Fisher Phillips,[[30]](#fn-30) and Holland & Hart all read SF 107 as a major narrowing of Wyoming practice, not a minor adjustment. They agree that the statute is prospective only, that the four statutory exceptions are the operative post-July 1, 2025 carveouts, and that physician non-competes are separately voided by subsection (b). They also agree that employers cannot assume old template language will survive a simple rollover after the effective date.
Those firm analyses also sit on top of a demanding Wyoming case-law baseline. *Brown*[[31]](#fn-31) and *Malave*[[32]](#fn-32) describe non-competes as restraints that are strictly construed, and *Hassler*[[33]](#fn-33) makes drafting error much more expensive by eliminating blue-penciling. So even where a restraint arguably fits a statutory exception, Wyoming-specific commentary does not treat that as a license for careless drafting.
## Differences in Firm Treatment
The sharpest source-level disagreement is over adjacent restraints. Brownstein takes the most employer-friendly view and says the statute does not affect non-solicitation, non-recruitment, or confidentiality agreements.[[34]](#fn-34) Littler and Fisher Phillips are more cautious: Littler says the lack of an express non-solicit exception leaves the issue unclear,[[35]](#fn-35) and Fisher says courts still must decide whether customer nonsolicits, employee nonsolicits, broad confidentiality provisions, or anti-moonlighting clauses count as covered non-compete covenants under the new language.[[36]](#fn-36) The safest Wyoming-specific synthesis is uncertainty, not a blanket rule of safety.
The firms also vary in how aggressively they use Colorado analogies for the executive-and-management exception. Fisher Phillips and Holland & Hart develop Colorado comparisons in some detail,[[37]](#fn-37) while Faegre and Littler mainly emphasize the absence of Wyoming definitions.[[38]](#fn-38)[[39]](#fn-39) The common denominator is narrower: titles alone are not enough, and any future Wyoming analysis is likely to focus on actual authority, autonomy, and managerial function.
Finally, the physician subsection raises a textual edge the sources handle cautiously. Subsection (b) speaks of agreements "between physicians,"[[40]](#fn-40) which Littler and Holland & Hart both note can create a question about contracts with hospitals or other non-physician entities.[[41]](#fn-41) The note therefore treats the physician carveout's application beyond the statutory text as unsettled rather than overstating certainty.
## Recent Developments
- **July 1, 2025**: The new statute took effect for contracts entered into on and after that date,[[42]](#fn-42) while the act expressly left earlier contracts untouched.[[43]](#fn-43)
- **March 19, 2025**: Governor Mark Gordon signed Senate File 107, creating W.S. 1-23-108 and replacing Wyoming's prior statute-free regime with a broad prospective ban plus enumerated exceptions.[[44]](#fn-44)
## Related Pages
- Matching template: [openagreements-restrictive-covenant-wyoming](/templates/openagreements-restrictive-covenant-wyoming.md)
---
_Research preview · not legal advice · last verified April 14th, 2026._