Maryland’s non-compete framework has shifted twice since 2019, and most employers in the state are still operating with restrictive covenant templates that predate at least one of the changes. The 2019 minimum wage threshold knocked out non-competes for lower-paid workers. The 2024 amendments (House Bill 1388) added a complete ban for veterinary professionals and a tiered restriction for healthcare professionals that took full effect July 1, 2025. A Maryland business law attorney reviewing employer-side non-competes in 2026 typically finds that the agreements were drafted before one or both rounds of changes, which means the employer is relying on language that is either void or vulnerable to challenge. This post walks through what’s enforceable, what’s not, and how to draft restrictive covenants that survive review.
The 2019 minimum wage threshold ban
The foundational rule lives at Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-716. The statute voids any non-compete clause that restricts an employee from working for a new employer or becoming self-employed if the employee earns less than 150 percent of the Maryland state minimum wage. With the state minimum wage at $15.00 per hour as of 2026, the threshold sits at $22.50 per hour, or roughly $46,800 annualized.
Two practical points:
- The threshold tracks the state minimum wage, not federal or county rates. Montgomery, Howard, and Prince George’s counties have higher county minimums but the § 3-716 calculation uses the state floor.
- The 2024 amendments removed the prior annual-earning requirement, so the calculation runs on the hourly rate without a separate annualized comparison.
Non-competes signed with workers below the threshold are void as a matter of public policy. They cannot be saved by good faith, narrow drafting, or sophisticated language.
The 2024 veterinary ban
House Bill 1388, effective June 1, 2024, voids any non-compete or conflict-of-interest provision in an employment contract or similar agreement for an employee licensed as a veterinary practitioner or veterinary technician under Maryland’s Agriculture Code. The ban is categorical. It does not turn on income, geographic scope, duration, or any other factor.
The ban applies prospectively to agreements executed on or after June 1, 2024. Pre-existing veterinary non-competes signed before that date remain enforceable under the prior framework, subject to the § 3-716 wage threshold analysis.
The 2024 healthcare framework, in force since July 1, 2025
The healthcare portion of HB 1388 took effect July 1, 2025 and applies prospectively to agreements executed on or after that date. The framework is tiered:
- Healthcare professionals earning $350,000 or less in total annual compensation: non-compete and conflict-of-interest provisions are void in full. The ban covers any individual licensed under Maryland’s Health Occupations Article (physicians, dentists, nurses, mental health counselors, and others) who provides direct patient care.
- Healthcare professionals earning more than $350,000: non-competes are permitted but materially limited. The restriction can last no more than one year after termination and must be limited to a 10-mile radius from the professional’s primary place of employment.
The “direct patient care” qualifier matters. Healthcare administrators, executives, and licensed professionals who do not provide direct patient care are not covered by these specific restrictions and remain subject to the general § 3-716 framework.
What a Maryland Business Law Attorney recommends instead of a void non-compete
For workers covered by one of the bans, the employer’s protection has to come from other restrictive covenants. Maryland law continues to recognize:
- Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions, including trade secret protections under the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act
- Customer non-solicitation provisions, when reasonably scoped
- Employee non-solicitation provisions, including anti-poaching language
- Anti-moonlighting policies during active employment
- Restrictive covenants tied to the sale of a business, which are evaluated under different standards
- Garden leave provisions and notice periods, which are not non-competes
The 2024 amendments specifically left non-solicitation provisions intact. A veterinary clinic that cannot impose a non-compete on a departing veterinarian can still prohibit her from contacting the clinic’s clients or recruiting her former colleagues for a defined period after separation.
Drafting non-solicits that survive challenge
Customer non-solicits are the most useful tool when a non-compete is unavailable. Maryland courts evaluate them under reasonableness standards developed in Becker v. Bailey, 268 Md. 93 (1973), and subsequent cases. A defensible customer non-solicit typically includes:
- A definition of “customer” limited to those with whom the employee had material contact during a specified lookback period (often 12-24 months)
- A duration of one to two years post-employment
- A prohibition on initiating contact, soliciting, or accepting business from the defined customer group, with carve-outs for incidental contact
- A geographic limitation when the customer base is location-dependent
- A clear definition of “solicit” that excludes general advertising and personal relationships predating employment
Employee non-solicits follow the same logic. A six-to-twelve-month restriction on actively recruiting former colleagues, paired with a passive-contact carve-out, holds up better than a blanket no-contact prohibition.
Confidentiality agreements: the workhorse provision
Confidentiality and trade secret protections are not affected by § 3-716 or HB 1388. They remain available for every employee category, including veterinarians and direct-patient-care healthcare professionals. A well-drafted Maryland confidentiality provision should:
- Define confidential information specifically, including customer lists, pricing, financial data, technical processes, and protocols
- Distinguish between trade secret material (protected indefinitely) and confidential business information (typically protected for a defined post-employment period)
- Include both disclosure and use prohibitions
- Carve out general industry knowledge, publicly available information, and information already known to the employee before employment
- Reference the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act for remedy enhancement
A confidentiality clause that satisfies these requirements is enforceable against every category of Maryland employee and protects the same business interests a non-compete would have protected, without the statutory vulnerability.
Practical compliance moves for 2026
For an employer wanting to maximize enforceability:
- Audit existing employment agreement templates for any non-compete language with workers earning under $22.50 per hour
- Identify any veterinary or direct-patient-care healthcare professionals on the payroll and remove non-compete language from new offer letters or renewal agreements
- Replace voided non-competes with customer non-solicits, employee non-solicits, and tightened confidentiality language
- Confirm pre-2024 agreements that remain enforceable are documented and stored properly
- Update handbook anti-moonlighting policies to apply only during active employment
Bottom line
Maryland’s non-compete framework is now strict enough that employer-side enforcement requires deliberate drafting and a willingness to abandon the standard non-compete template for the categories the law no longer reaches. A consultation with a Maryland business law attorney can audit existing agreements, identify the workers covered by the 2019 and 2024 bans, and rebuild the restrictive covenant package around confidentiality and non-solicit provisions that survive challenge. Useful background reading: Maryland Department of Labor at labor.maryland.gov and the statutory text at mgaleg.maryland.gov. Internal pages worth pairing with this post include a Maryland employment compliance checklist, an SB 525 pay transparency guide, and a fractional general counsel overview.