Veterinary Non-Competes in Colorado

Section 8-2-113(2)(a) starts from a void-by-default position: a covenant not to compete that restricts an individual's right to be paid for labor is void, except as (2)(b), (2)(d), and (3) provide.

For a veterinarian, that means an employer cannot simply write a covenant into an associate agreement and expect it to hold — the covenant only survives if it fits one of the statute's named exceptions.

The statute also carries a notice duty: any otherwise-permissible covenant is void unless the employer gives written notice before a prospective worker accepts an offer, or — for a current worker — at least 14 days before whichever comes first, the covenant's own effective date or the effective date of any additional compensation or other change in employment terms that provides the consideration for it (§ 8-2-113(4)(a)).

That notice must come in a document separate from the rest of the agreement, stated in clear and conspicuous terms, and signed by the worker (§ 8-2-113(4)(b)).

Reading an offer, a veterinarian's first question under this statute is which exception, if any, the employer is relying on.

SB 25-083 (2025) added a carve-out inside the highly-compensated-worker exception itself: a covenant that restricts "the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry" is void regardless of how much the worker earns.

That list names three practice types (the statute's own "practice of medicine" term is itself defined to include practice as a physician assistant), and veterinary medicine is not one of them.

A veterinarian's covenant does not get the benefit of that income-blind ban; instead, it falls to the ordinary highly-compensated-worker exception that (2)(b) sets up for every other worker.

A headline describing Colorado as banning non-competes for healthcare workers is describing physicians (including PAs), APRNs, and dentists specifically, not a veterinarian's contract.

Because the healthcare-specific ban does not reach veterinarians, the (2)(b) highly-compensated-worker exception is the route by which an employee veterinarian's non-compete — one tied to ordinary practice work rather than to buying or selling an ownership interest — can escape being void. (A covenant tied to a practice sale or ownership stake is judged separately, under the sale-of-business exception in (3)(c).) That exception has two separate conditions, not one: the veterinarian's annualized cash compensation must meet or exceed the highly-compensated-worker threshold — $130,014/yr for 2026, up from $127,091 in 2025 — both when the covenant is signed and when it is enforced, and the covenant itself must be for the protection of trade secrets and no broader than reasonably necessary to protect that interest.

An associate earning below the threshold has a void covenant regardless of what it says; an associate above the threshold still has to clear the trade-secrets/no-broader-than-necessary condition.

The dollar figure itself is set annually by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's PAY CALC Order, not stated as a number in the statute's own text.

Section 8-2-113(3)(c) exempts a covenant tied to the purchase and sale of a business, an ownership share, or substantially all of a business's assets, where it restricts competition by an owner of an interest in the business.

That is a different exception from the highly-compensated-worker route in (2)(b) — it does not depend on income or trade secrets, and it applies to the owner-seller, not an employee.

SB 25-083 (2025) added a limit: for a minority owner who received their ownership share as compensation for services, the covenant's duration in years cannot exceed the total sale consideration received divided by their average annualized cash compensation from the business over whichever is shorter, the preceding two years or their period of affiliation with the business.

A veterinarian buying into or selling out of a Colorado practice is negotiating a covenant under this exception, not the employee non-compete rule.

Colorado treats a customer non-solicitation covenant separately from a full non-compete.

Section 8-2-113(2)(d) exempts a non-solicitation covenant from the general void rule only for an individual earning at least 60% of the highly-compensated-worker threshold — $78,008.40/yr for 2026 — and only where the covenant is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets.

As with the full non-compete exception, (2)(d) carries the same physician/APRN/dentist carve-out that makes the ban income-blind for those three professions and leaves veterinarians under the 60%-threshold test.

A relief veterinarian or associate reading a client non-solicitation clause should check income against this lower line, not the full non-compete threshold.

SB 25-083 took effect August 6, 2025 and applies to covenants entered into or renewed on or after that date — it does not reach an earlier covenant that is neither entered into nor renewed after the effective date.

It added the physician/APRN/dentist non-compete and non-solicitation ban to (2)(b) and (2)(d); added a broader "health-care provider" definition — covering the practice of medicine (itself defined to include physician assistants), advanced practice registered nursing, certified midwifery, and dentistry — for a separate patient-notification right at (5.5); and amended the sale-of-business exception at (3)(c) to add a duration cap for a minority owner who received their ownership share as compensation for services.

It did not change the underlying void-by-default structure of (2)(a) or the highly-compensated-worker exception's trade-secrets condition, and it did not add veterinarians to any exception.

The 2026 dollar thresholds ($130,014 general, $78,008.40 non-solicitation) took effect separately, on January 1, 2026, under the statute's existing annual-adjustment mechanism.

The research behind this page reads the statute's text directly; it does not identify a Colorado court decision addressing how a judge treats a covenant found to be broader than the trade-secrets condition allows — whether the covenant is struck as written, narrowed, or rewritten.

That gap matters most for a veterinarian whose covenant clears the income threshold but whose scope is disputed.

Section 8-2-113(3)(a) also exempts a separate category this page does not cover in depth: a covenant recovering the expense of educating and training a worker, capped at a decreasing amount over two years and subject to federal wage-and-hour law.

These gaps are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to a Colorado attorney with the whole agreement in hand.