Veterinary Non-Competes in Maine
Maine bars an employer from requiring or permitting a noncompete agreement with a veterinarian who is employed in a veterinary facility and does not hold an ownership interest in it, under 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(B), naming veterinarians directly rather than through a physician-only definition.
An owner-veterinarian's covenant instead falls under the statute's general reasonableness test in § 599-A(2).
A separate low-wage exemption sits alongside the veterinarian exemption in § 599-A(3)(A).
The veterinarian exemption was added by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Limited by a healthcare statute that names veterinarians
State statute — 26 M.R.S. § 599-A (Noncompete agreements), subsection 3.
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: Yes — the statute names veterinarians.
Section 599-A(3)(B) bars an employer from requiring or permitting a noncompete agreement with a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A who does not have an ownership interest in the veterinary facility where they work.
Yes. 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(B) names veterinarians licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A directly, exempting a non-owner veterinarian from noncompete agreements outright.
Under § 599-A(3)(A), an employee — including a veterinarian — earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level cannot be bound by a noncompete agreement at all. The statute states only that formula; it does not itself give a dollar figure, and this page does not publish the commonly-cited ~$63,840/yr estimate because the sources read flag it as an unverified secondary-source calculation.
No time-or-area question reaches a non-owner veterinarian, because § 599-A(3)(B) bars the noncompete agreement outright rather than limiting its duration or geography. An owner-veterinarian's covenant instead falls under § 599-A(2)'s general reasonableness test, which sets no fixed cap.
Not stated in the sources read.
The veterinarian exemption in § 599-A(3)(B) turns on ownership: it reaches only a veterinarian without an ownership interest in the facility. A veterinarian who does hold an ownership interest falls outside the exemption and is instead subject to § 599-A(2)'s general reasonableness test, not a separate sale-of-practice provision.
Section 599-A(2) names a nonsolicitation agreement only as an example of an alternative restrictive covenant that can defeat the presumption that a noncompete is necessary. The statute sets no separate rules for a non-solicitation clause itself.
Section 599-A originates from PL 2019, c. 513, § 1; the veterinarian exemption in subsection 3(B) was added by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1.
What Maine’s text actually says
“The employee is a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A and is employed in a veterinary facility in which the employee does not have an ownership interest.”
The reasonableness test § 599-A(2) sets for every Maine noncompete
Section 599-A(2) declares noncompete agreements contrary to public policy and enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets, confidential information that does not qualify as a trade secret, or goodwill.
That is the baseline test for any Maine noncompete the statute does not otherwise bar outright.
Subsection 4 also requires an employer to disclose before an offer that a noncompete will be required and to give the employee a copy of it at least three business days before the employer requires it to be signed.
Subsection 6 makes a violation of subsection 3 or 4 a civil violation carrying a fine of not less than $5,000, enforced by the Department of Labor.
“Noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonable and are no broader than necessary to protect one or more of the following legitimate business interests of the employer”
Why Maine's noncompete law names veterinarians directly
Subsection 3 lists two categories of worker an employer may not require or permit to sign a noncompete agreement at all: a low-wage worker under paragraph (A), and, under paragraph (B), a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A who does not have an ownership interest in the veterinary facility employing them.
That second category is a direct, unambiguous reference to veterinarians, naming the license and the chapter it falls under rather than defining a broader "health care practitioner" category and leaving veterinary medicine to fall in or out of it.
For an associate veterinarian reading an offer, the practical question the statute asks is narrow: does the associate hold an ownership interest in the practice, or not.
Subsection 5 also excuses allopathic and osteopathic physicians, but not veterinarians, from a separate delayed-effective-date rule that otherwise applies to noncompete agreements generally.
“The employee is a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A and is employed in a veterinary facility in which the employee does not have an ownership interest.”
What the ownership-interest line means for a buy-in or buy-out veterinarian
The veterinarian exemption is written around ownership, not around whether the covenant is tied to employment versus a sale.
A veterinarian who does not have an ownership interest in the facility cannot be bound by a noncompete agreement at all, regardless of how it is drafted.
A veterinarian who does hold an ownership interest — including one who has bought into a practice — falls outside that exemption entirely and is instead measured against the general § 599-A(2) reasonableness test, the same test that governs any other Maine noncompete.
The statute's text read for this page does not separately address a covenant drafted specifically around the sale of practice goodwill or equity, apart from this ownership distinction.
How the veterinarian exemption reaches existing agreements
The veterinarian exemption was added to § 599-A by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1, on top of a section that originated in PL 2019, c. 513, § 1.
The statute's text includes a specific rule for agreements that predate the amendment: a court may not enforce a noncompete agreement entered into or renewed with a veterinarian before paragraph (B)'s effective date, unless the veterinarian is working in a veterinary facility in which the veterinarian has an ownership interest.
That test asks about the veterinarian's ownership status now, not about their ownership status when the agreement was originally signed.
The row and statute text read for this page do not give paragraph (B)'s specific effective date, so this page states only the enacting law, PL 2023, c. 118, § 1, rather than a calendar date.
What this page does not answer for Maine
The research behind this page reads the statute's text; it does not state a specific dollar figure for the separate low-wage exemption's 400%-of-the-federal-poverty-level threshold, and does not describe how a Maine court treats an overbroad covenant that falls under the general reasonableness test (no blue-pencil, red-pencil or reformation authority is addressed in the sources read).
On non-solicitation, the statute's only mention is in passing: § 599-A(2) names a nonsolicitation agreement as an example of an alternative restrictive covenant that can defeat the presumption a noncompete is necessary, but sets no separate rules of its own for one.
Those gaps are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule or an unofficial estimate — take them to a Maine attorney with the whole agreement in hand.
Have the agreement itself reviewed
Start with the mechanics
The reasonableness test, what a radius is measured from, the access-to-care argument, and the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause are covered in the national guide to veterinary non-competes. This page covers only what is specific to Maine.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Maine's non-compete law protect veterinarians?
Yes, for a veterinarian employed in a veterinary facility. 26 M.R.S. § 599-A(3)(B) bars an employer from requiring or permitting a noncompete agreement with an employee who is a veterinarian licensed under Title 32, chapter 71-A and is employed in a veterinary facility in which the employee does not have an ownership interest.
A veterinarian working outside a veterinary facility — in industry, a laboratory, or for a government agency, for example — is not clearly addressed by this paragraph.
Have a Maine attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements confirm how this applies to your own contract.
Does owning a share of the practice change whether the exemption applies to a veterinarian?
Yes, ownership is the line the statute draws.
Section 599-A(3)(B) exempts only a veterinarian who does not have an ownership interest in the veterinary facility; a veterinarian who holds an ownership interest falls outside that exemption and is instead measured under the general § 599-A(2) reasonableness test.
The sources read for this page do not separately address a covenant drafted specifically around a sale of practice equity.
An attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions can review a buy-in or buy-out agreement against both provisions.
Is there a wage threshold below which a Maine veterinarian cannot be bound by a non-compete?
Section 599-A(3)(A) exempts employees earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level, a separate category from the veterinarian exemption in (3)(B).
The statute does not itself state a dollar figure, and this page does not publish an estimated dollar amount because the sources read leave it unverified against an official publication.
A Maine attorney can help confirm where a specific salary falls relative to the current federal poverty guideline.
What happens if a Maine veterinarian signed a non-compete before the veterinarian exemption existed?
The statute addresses this directly: a court may not enforce a noncompete agreement entered into or renewed with a veterinarian before paragraph (B)'s effective date, unless the veterinarian is working in a veterinary facility in which the veterinarian has an ownership interest.
That test looks at the veterinarian's ownership status now, not at the time the agreement was originally signed.
The exemption was added by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1; the sources read for this page do not give paragraph (B)'s specific effective date.
Have a Maine attorney review the timing and terms of your specific agreement.
When did Maine's veterinarian non-compete exemption take effect, and could it change again?
The veterinarian exemption was added to § 599-A by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1, on top of a section originally enacted by PL 2019, c. 513, § 1.
This page was last verified in September 2026.
Non-compete statutes are amended by legislatures with some regularity, so confirm the current text of § 599-A and have your agreement reviewed by an attorney who handles veterinary employment contracts in Maine before relying on it.
More Maine Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- 26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Maine Legislature (official Revisor of Statutes site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
Sourced from Maine’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended Section 599-A originates from PL 2019, c. 513, § 1; the veterinarian exemption in subsection 3(B) was added by PL 2023, c. 118, § 1. This page is general information, not legal advice.