Veterinary Non-Competes in Nevada

Subsection (1) voids a noncompetition covenant unless it clears four conditions at once: valuable consideration, a restraint no greater than needed to protect the employer, no undue hardship on the employee, and restrictions appropriate to the consideration given.

For an associate reading an offer letter, that means the covenant is only as strong as its weakest of the four — a broadly worded restriction can fail on the second or third prong even where consideration is clearly present.

None of the four conditions is defined by a fixed number of months, miles, or dollars; each is assessed against the specific facts of the covenant and the employment relationship it accompanies.

Nevada has no statute directed specifically at healthcare-practitioner non-competes, so a veterinarian's covenant is governed by the same general test in NRS 613.195 that applies to any employee.

A 2023 bill, AB 11, would have barred non-competition covenants between hospitals and physicians — a narrower category than veterinarians in any event — but Gov.

Lombardo vetoed it, so it never became law.

Anyone relying on a claim that Nevada has since restricted healthcare non-competes is describing legislation that died at the veto, not a rule in force.

Nevada sets no minimum salary above which a non-compete becomes enforceable.

Instead, subsection (3) removes an entire pay category from coverage: a noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities.

A relief veterinarian or associate paid on that basis falls outside the statute entirely, regardless of the covenant's other terms.

A veterinarian paid a salary, a production percentage, or any structure other than a pure hourly wage does not get this carve-out and is measured under the general four-part test instead.

If an employer tries to enforce a covenant against an hourly-paid employee anyway, subsection (7) requires the court to award that employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Where a covenant is supported by valuable consideration but its terms are found unreasonable, subsection (6) does not let a court simply strike the covenant.

It requires the court to revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised — for an associate with an overbroad clause in an employment covenant, that means a narrower court-rewritten version, not a guaranteed exit from the restriction altogether.

Subsection (5) narrows enforcement further after an involuntary separation: if an associate's employment ends because of a layoff, reduction of force, or similar restructuring, the covenant stays enforceable only for as long as the employer keeps paying that associate's salary, benefits, or equivalent compensation, including severance.

An employer that stops those payments after a layoff loses the ability to enforce the covenant at all.

Separate from the pay-based carve-out, the statute limits how far a covenant can reach into a practice's client base — but only when three conditions hold together under subsection (2): the former employee did not solicit the former customer or client, the customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek the employee's services, and the former employee is otherwise complying with the covenant's own limits on time, geographical area and scope of activity.

That third condition means a departing associate who opens a practice inside the covenant's restricted radius does not get this carve-out merely because a client left voluntarily and unsolicited — the carve-out only protects an employee who is otherwise staying within the covenant's other terms.

Where an employer restricts or attempts to restrict a former employee in violation of this carve-out, subsection (7) requires the court to award that employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The research behind this page reads the statute's text but does not cover how a Nevada court treats sale-of-business covenants tied to a practice purchase, or a fixed duration and geographic scope a court would consider reasonable in the absence of the pay-based carve-out.

Those gaps matter most to a buy-in or buy-out veterinarian negotiating alongside purchase terms.

They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule or from memory — take them to a Nevada attorney with the whole agreement in hand.