When a key employee leaves to join a competitor or starts soliciting your customers, the legal response must be immediate and precise. Non-compete and non-solicitation agreements exist to protect what businesses invest years building: customer relationships, proprietary processes, and workforce stability. Enforcing these agreements requires understanding both the technical requirements of Texas law and the practical urgency of stopping competitive harm before it compounds.
Kretzer & Arnett Law Firm represents businesses throughout the Houston area in disputes involving restrictive covenants. We handle enforcement actions when former employees violate their obligations, and we defend parties facing overbroad or unenforceable claims. Our approach combines procedural knowledge with strategic judgment at every stage, from emergency relief applications to final trial.
Non-compete agreements restrict where and for whom a departing employee may work after leaving your company. These covenants typically limit employment with direct competitors within a defined geographic area for a specified period.
Non-solicitation agreements prohibit former employees from soliciting your customers, clients, or other employees. These restrictions may apply even when a broader non-compete would not. A non-solicitation provision focuses on protecting existing business relationships rather than restricting employment entirely.
Under Texas law, both types of restrictive covenants are governed by the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code Sections 15.50 through 15.52). Notably, customer and employee non-solicitation covenants are treated as covenants not to compete subject to the Act. Both require careful drafting to survive judicial scrutiny, and both demand prompt enforcement when violated.
Texas law permits non-compete agreements under specific conditions. The Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 15.50) governs enforceability and sets clear requirements.
To be enforceable, a non-compete must be:
Courts evaluate reasonableness based on the legitimate business interests at stake. Protection of trade secrets, confidential customer information, business goodwill, and specialized training may justify a restrictive covenant. Restrictions of one to two years are commonly upheld, and the geographic scope is generally reasonable when tied to the territory where the employee actually worked, though a limit keyed to the clients the employee dealt with can serve as a reasonable alternative to geographic restriction. Industry-wide bans, restrictions reaching clients the employer never served, and agreements that are overly broad in duration, territory, or scope of prohibited activity face modification or rejection.
Non-solicitation agreements operate under similar principles but typically receive more favorable treatment because they impose narrower restrictions. A provision preventing solicitation of the specific customers an employee actually served may stand even where a blanket non-compete would fail. A covenant that bars soliciting all customers or customers the employee never dealt with is generally overbroad and unenforceable.
Yes. Texas does not simply throw out a non-compete that reaches too far. If a covenant is otherwise valid but its limitations on time, geographic area, or scope of activity are broader than necessary, the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act directs the court to reform, or blue-pencil, the covenant to reasonable limits and enforce it as reformed.
This rule shapes litigation strategy on both sides. For an employer enforcing a covenant, this means an aggressive restriction is not automatically lost, but a court can award only injunctive relief for conduct that occurred before reformation; damages for a breach predating reformation are unavailable. For a party seeking to avoid enforcement, reformation can narrow an overbroad covenant to a court-approved restriction and cut off pre-reformation damages. How a court is likely to reform a covenant is often central to how these cases are litigated and resolved.
The 2025 Texas legislative session produced the most significant change to non-compete law in years. Senate Bill 1318, signed into law on June 20, 2025, and effective September 1, 2025, amended the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act to tighten the rules for non-competes involving healthcare professionals.
For physicians licensed by the Texas Medical Board, and now for dentists, professional or vocational nurses, and physician assistants, a covenant restricting practice must satisfy strict limits. The covenant must expire no later than one year after the employment or contract ends; it must limit the restricted area to no more than five mile radius from the location where the provider primarily practiced; it must allow the provider to buy out of the covenant for an amount no greater than his or her total annual salary and wages at the time of termination; and its terms must be stated clearly and conspicuously in writing.
Additional protections apply specifically to physicians. A physician non-compete is void and unenforceable if the physician is involuntarily discharged without good cause, meaning a reasonable basis related to the physician’s conduct, job performance, or contract record. The physician-specific rules also preserve a departing physician’s access to patient lists and records and the right to continue treating a patient during an acute illness.
The new limits do not reach every agreement. They do not apply to a person who manages or directs medical services in a purely administrative capacity, or to a physician’s ownership interest in a licensed hospital or ambulatory surgical center. The requirements apply to covenants entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025; agreements signed earlier are governed by the law in effect when they were made.
These changes reshape what is actually enforceable when a healthcare non-compete ends up in court; Kretzer & Arnett litigates these disputes on both sides, representing healthcare businesses seeking to enforce a covenant and physicians and other providers defending against one under the amended statute.
Enforcement becomes necessary when competitive harm is imminent or underway. Common scenarios include:
Timing determines the outcome in many cases. Waiting weeks or months to act can undermine your position. Courts evaluate whether delay implies acquiescence or minimal actual harm.
Early legal intervention preserves your options and signals that violations will be met with consequences.
Texas courts offer multiple remedies to businesses enforcing restrictive covenants. The appropriate remedy depends on the nature of the violation and the immediacy of the harm.
Temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions provide emergency relief. These court orders can stop a former employee from working for a competitor or contacting your customers while the underlying case proceeds. To obtain a temporary injunction in Texas state court, the applicant must plead and prove a cause of action against the defendant, a probable right to the relief sought, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Because the loss of goodwill, client relationships, and market position often cannot be measured in dollars, that kind of harm can qualify as irreparable, and Texas courts recognize a rebuttable presumption of irreparable injury when a highly trained employee continues to breach a valid covenant.
Permanent injunctions enforce the covenant for its full term or as modified by the court. If the original agreement is overbroad, a court may reform the restrictions to reasonable limits and then enforce the modified version.
Monetary damages compensate for lost business, diverted customers, and other measurable harm caused by the violation. Where a court reforms an overbroad covenant, however, damages are not available for breaches that occurred before reformation, and relief for that period is limited to an injunction.
Kretzer & Arnett Law Firm handles emergency relief applications in non-compete and non-solicitation disputes. Our experience with injunctive proceedings is detailed on our [Emergency and Injunctive Relief](/emergency-injunctive-relief/) page. We understand the procedural requirements and narrow timeframes these applications demand.
Restrictive-covenant disputes frequently overlap with the misuse of trade secrets. When a departing employee takes or uses confidential customer data, pricing, processes, or other proprietary information, the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act supply additional remedies, including injunctive relief and damages, that can be pursued alongside enforcement of a non-compete or non-solicitation covenant. Because these statutes protect information the business has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, pairing a trade secret claim with covenant enforcement often strengthens an application for emergency relief.
Not every restrictive covenant is enforceable. Businesses and individuals accused of violating a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement have defenses available under Texas law.
Common grounds for challenging enforcement include:
Kretzer & Arnett represents parties on both sides of restrictive covenant disputes. We defend employees and businesses facing claims based on overbroad agreements or factual misrepresentations about alleged violations.
Our firm approaches these cases with the same technical precision we bring to enforcement actions. In the right circumstances, an employee who defeats an overbroad covenant may also recover attorney’s fees, where the employer knew the covenant was unreasonable when it was signed and sought to enforce it beyond what was necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Non-compete and non-solicitation disputes often require immediate court intervention. Emergency hearings, expedited discovery, and injunction proceedings move faster than standard litigation. These cases demand attorneys who can draft emergency pleadings, prepare witness testimony, and present evidence on compressed timelines.
Kretzer & Arnett Law Firm handles complex commercial disputes involving restrictive covenants in state and federal courts throughout Texas. We represent businesses in Houston, The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Pearland, Cypress, Conroe, and surrounding areas. Our clients include companies in Galveston, Friendswood, Bellaire, West University Place, Spring, Tomball, and Kingwood.
Our boutique structure ensures continuity as cases evolve. The attorney who evaluates your matter and files your application for emergency relief is the same attorney who handles discovery, motion practice, and trial.
We bring strategic judgment to matters where timing and procedural precision determine the outcome.
Texas law does not set a specific maximum duration. Courts evaluate whether the time restriction is reasonable based on the legitimate business interests being protected. Non-competes lasting one to two years are common and often upheld. Longer restrictions may be enforceable in cases involving sale of a business or unique circumstances, but face greater scrutiny. Each case turns on its specific facts. Note that non-competes with physicians and certain other healthcare professionals now face a hard one-year cap under Senate Bill 1318 for agreements entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025.
Yes, under certain conditions. The non-compete must be ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement. For at-will employees hired after the agreement was signed, consideration beyond continued employment may be required. If the employee received confidential information, specialized training, or other consideration in exchange for signing the covenant, enforceability is more likely. The analysis depends on when the agreement was signed and what the employee received in return.
A non-solicitation agreement prohibits contacting or doing business with specific customers, clients, or employees. It does not restrict where the former employee may work. A non-compete prevents employment with competitors entirely, regardless of whether the employee contacts your customers. Non-solicitation provisions are narrower and typically face less judicial resistance because they impose smaller burdens on the departing employee while still protecting business relationships.
Document the violation immediately. Gather evidence showing what the former employee is doing, where they are working, and which customers or employees they have contacted. Preserve communications, LinkedIn updates, and other records. Consult an attorney promptly to evaluate whether emergency court intervention is warranted. Delay can weaken your case and allow competitive harm to spread.
No. The Federal Trade Commission’s 2024 rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide never took effect. A federal court in Texas set the rule aside in 2024, and in September 2025 the FTC formally abandoned the rule and dropped the appeals. Texas non-competes continue to be governed by Texas law, although the FTC has signaled it may still challenge specific non-competes through case-by-case enforcement.
Yes. Texas courts are directed to reform an overbroad but otherwise valid covenant to reasonable limits and enforce it as reformed. Keep in mind that no damages are available for a breach that occurred before reformation; the remedy for that period is limited to an injunction.
Yes. Under Senate Bill 1318, effective September 1, 2025, a non-compete with a physician, dentist, nurse, or physician assistant must expire within one year, stay within a five-mile radius of where the provider primarily practiced, allow a buyout capped at the provider’s total annual salary, and be stated clearly in writing. A physician’s non-compete is also void if the physician is discharged without good cause.
When a restrictive covenant is violated, the window for effective legal action is narrow. Kretzer & Arnett Law Firm represents businesses and individuals in non-compete and non-solicitation disputes throughout the Houston area.
Call (713) 600-5190 to discuss your matter with our firm. We handle cases that demand focus, technical skill, and measured judgment at critical points.
