The Clause About Working Elsewhere
Raimonde v. Van Vlerah — three questions, and a court that may rewrite rather than only strike
Ohio has no statute that makes a non competition clause valid or void. What it has is a test from the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the test is not whether the clause is fair in the abstract. It is whether the restraint is larger than the thing it was written to protect.
Three questions, and all three have to be answered. A covenant restraining an employee from competing with a former employer on termination of employment is reasonable where it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. A clause that protects a real interest can still fail on the second question or the third.
An overbroad clause is not automatically dead. Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve a reasonable result. That replaced the older approach under which an unreasonable provision could be struck out where it was divisible but not rewritten, and under which an indivisible unreasonable restraint took the whole covenant down with it.
The practical consequence runs both ways and is worth stating plainly. An employee holding a clause that looks obviously too wide cannot assume it is worth nothing, because a court may narrow it and enforce what is left. An employer who drafted deliberately wide cannot assume the width will hold, because the same power that saves a clause is the power that cuts it down.
| The question | What it asks about |
|---|---|
| The questionIs it no greater than required? | What it asks aboutThe employer's interest being protected |
| The questionDoes it impose undue hardship? | What it asks aboutThe employee's ability to earn a living |
| The questionIs it injurious to the public? | What it asks aboutEverybody who is not a party to the contract |
The answer is about this clause, on these facts. Reasonableness is decided on the particular restraint, the particular role and the particular industry, which is why no duration and no radius is safe or fatal on its own. Two clauses with identical wording can come out differently where the jobs behind them are different.
Non solicitation clauses, confidentiality obligations, trade secret claims under their own statute, consideration for a clause signed after employment began, and the treatment of these clauses when a business is sold are each their own body of law and are not on this page. Whether a particular clause is enforceable against a particular person is a question for a licensed Ohio attorney reading the agreement itself, and this page is not a substitute for that.
Sources for this section (1)
- Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975) — A covenant not to compete is reasonable where it is no greater than required to protect the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public; a court may modify rather than only strike
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Talk to a licensed Ohio attorney about your situation.