Veterinary Non-Competes in New Hampshire
The sources read for this page cover two narrow New Hampshire statutes, not a general non-compete statute or a leading case: RSA 329:31-a voids a geography or duration restriction written into a physician's employment or partnership agreement, and RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) separately bars any employer from requiring a "low-wage employee" — defined by hourly pay, not profession — to sign a non-compete at all.
Neither statute is written around veterinary medicine, and for a veterinarian paid above the low-wage line, the sources read do not establish what rule applies.
This page was last verified in September 2026.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted only within statutory limits
State statute — RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) (low-wage employee non-compete ban); RSA 329:31-a (physician non-compete ban, does not reach veterinarians).
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No — the healthcare statute's own definitions leave veterinarians out.
The research behind this page read two narrow statutes, not a general non-compete statute or a leading case: RSA 329:31-a voids a geography/duration restriction on a physician's practice only, and RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) bars a non-compete for a "low-wage employee" by pay level, regardless of profession.
No. RSA 329:31-a is written for "a physician licensed by the board" under Title XXX, Chapter 329, "Physicians and Surgeons." Veterinarians, licensed separately, are not named anywhere in the section.
RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) bars a non-compete for a "low-wage employee," defined by an hourly rate at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage — a $14.50/hr threshold, 200% of the $7.25 federal minimum, as of 2026. It applies by pay level alone, to any profession, including a low-paid veterinary technician.
No statutory cap identified for a veterinarian above the low-wage line. RSA 329:31-a voids a physician's geography/duration restriction outright, but that provision is scoped to physicians only.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
RSA 329:31-a eff. Aug. 5, 2016; RSA 275:70-a eff. Sept. 8, 2019.
What New Hampshire’s text actually says
“No employer shall require a low-wage employee to enter into a noncompete agreement.”
New Hampshire's two narrow non-compete statutes, and where they leave most veterinarians
The sources read for this page — RSA 329:31-a and RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) — do not include a general reasonableness statute for employee non-competes or a leading New Hampshire case addressing one.
They cover two narrower statutes instead.
RSA 329:31-a voids any restriction on a physician's right to practice medicine that is written into a partnership, employment, or other professional-relationship agreement, but it is scoped to "a physician licensed by the board" under Title XXX, Chapter 329, "Physicians and Surgeons," and does not name veterinarians.
RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) separately bars an employer from requiring a "low-wage employee" to sign a non-compete agreement at all, regardless of what profession that employee is in.
For a veterinarian or veterinary employee paid above that low-wage line, the sources read for this page do not establish what test a New Hampshire court applies to the covenant.
Why the physician non-compete ban doesn't cover veterinarians
RSA 329:31-a voids, as against public policy, any provision in a partnership, employment, or other professional-relationship agreement that restricts "a physician licensed by the board" from practicing medicine in a geographic area for any period after the relationship ends — the restricted term is void, but the rest of the contract remains enforceable.
The statute sits in Title XXX, Chapter 329, "Physicians and Surgeons," and applies only to a contract or renewal entered into on or after its August 5, 2016 effective date; the sources read for this page found no cross-reference in the section to veterinary licensure.
A headline describing New Hampshire as barring "healthcare worker" non-competes therefore does not describe a veterinarian's covenant: the ban reaches only physicians licensed by the medical board.
Veterinarians, licensed under a separate board, are not covered by RSA 329:31-a in any respect.
“Any contract or agreement which creates or establishe[s] the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a physician licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such physician to also practice medicine in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such... relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction...”
The low-wage non-compete ban, and who it actually reaches
RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) bars an employer from requiring a low-wage employee to sign a non-compete agreement, and the statute defines a low-wage employee by an hourly rate at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage — a $14.50/hr threshold, 200% of the $7.25 federal minimum, as of 2026.
The ban is not written around any profession or license: a veterinary technician or other veterinary-practice employee paid at or below that rate falls under it by pay level alone, the same as any other low-wage worker in the state, and the statute draws no exclusion for a veterinary license.
Most veterinarians, and most veterinary employees, are paid above that hourly rate and so fall outside RSA 275:70-a's ban by pay level, not by license.
The sources read for this page do not establish what governs a covenant for an employee paid above that line.
“No employer shall require a low-wage employee to enter into a noncompete agreement.”
What this page does not answer for New Hampshire
The research behind this page reads RSA 329:31-a and RSA 275:70-a in full; it does not identify a general New Hampshire non-compete statute or a leading case addressing how a New Hampshire court treats an overbroad restriction, how a covenant tied to selling a veterinary practice or an ownership interest is handled, or how client or staff non-solicitation clauses are treated.
Those questions matter most for an associate or practice owner whose pay places them outside both narrow statutes described above.
They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to a New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does New Hampshire's healthcare non-compete law protect veterinarians?
No. RSA 329:31-a voids only the geography/duration restriction inside a partnership, employment, or professional-relationship agreement with "a physician licensed by the board" under Title XXX, Chapter 329 — the medical board's own chapter.
Veterinarians are licensed separately and are not named anywhere in the section, so a veterinarian's covenant is not affected by this statute.
Have a New Hampshire attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements confirm how your specific contract is treated.
Is there a wage level below which a New Hampshire non-compete is barred?
Yes, but it is a general low-wage rule, not a veterinary-specific one.
RSA 275:70-a(II)(a) bars a non-compete for any "low-wage employee," defined as one paid at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage — $14.50 an hour, as of 2026.
A veterinary technician paid at or below that rate could fall under the ban; most veterinarians earn well above it.
A New Hampshire attorney can tell you whether it applies to a specific position.
How long or how far can a New Hampshire veterinary non-compete run?
The sources read for this page found no statutory duration or geography cap that applies to a veterinarian's non-compete.
RSA 329:31-a's void geography/duration language is written for physicians only, and RSA 275:70-a addresses only whether a low-wage employee can be bound at all, not how long or how far a covenant that does apply can run.
Ask a New Hampshire attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements to evaluate the specific terms in your contract.
Does selling my share of a New Hampshire veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
The sources read for this page do not address how New Hampshire treats a covenant tied to the sale of a practice or an ownership interest, so this page does not answer it.
A buy-in or buy-out agreement may carry its own covenant tied to the purchase terms rather than the employment terms.
Have a New Hampshire attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review the covenant and the purchase agreement together before you sign.
When did New Hampshire's non-compete statutes that touch veterinary employment last change?
RSA 329:31-a took effect August 5, 2016, and RSA 275:70-a took effect September 8, 2019; the research behind this page did not find a later amendment to either.
This page was last verified in September 2026.
Non-compete law moves quickly in both legislatures and courts, so confirm the current text and speak with a New Hampshire attorney before relying on either statute.
More New Hampshire Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- RSA 329:31-a — New Hampshire General Court (official statutes site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- RSA 275:70-a — New Hampshire General Court (official statutes site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
Sourced from New Hampshire’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended RSA 329:31-a eff. Aug. 5, 2016; RSA 275:70-a eff. Sept. 8, 2019. This page is general information, not legal advice.