United States: The Competition Over Revising And Enforcing Noncompete Agreements In Nevada

The Nevada Legislature and Nevada Supreme Court have not always seen eye-to-eye in the interpretation of noncompetition covenants. Historically, the two bodies have parried back and forth in trying to decide where Nevada will draw the line in enforcing restrictive covenants.1 In many cases, the Nevada Supreme Court opted for a strict stance and invalidated noncompetition agreements the court viewed as overly broad. In response, the Nevada legislature pushed back with a mandate that the court should broadly modify, or "blue-pencil," these agreements to make them enforceable. Despite these efforts, this conflict and the overall discretionary nature of injunctive relief enforcement continue to create challenges in drafting strongly reliable noncompetition agreements in Nevada.

Historical Judicial Interpretations

While noncompetition agreements are generally enforceable in Nevada,2 the Nevada Supreme Court's precedents were somewhat muddled as to the practice of blue-penciling, that is, revising such agreements to make them enforceable. The practice began in the seminal 1967 case of Hansen v. Edwards,3 where the Nevada Supreme Court found a noncompetition covenant's geographic scope and duration unreasonable. But instead of treating the agreement as wholly unenforceable, the Nevada Supreme Court modified and reduced the geographic scope and duration from a 100-mile radius around Reno, Nevada with an unlimited duration down to the city limits of Reno with a one-year duration.4 Similarly, in the 1979 case of Ellis v. McDaniel, the court declined to enforce a health clinic's preliminary injunction based on a noncompete agreement that prohibited an employee-doctor from practicing his specialty of "orthopedic surgery" because none of the clinic's doctors was an orthopedic specialist.5 The court, however, modified the restriction to prohibit the doctor from engaging in the broader "general practice of medicine" in order to protect the "good will" of the clinic.6 These changes did not merely require the court to strike portions of the agreement to make it reasonable, but to actually modify the sections deemed unreasonable.

Even with this precedent of modification, however, the Nevada Supreme Court did not always opt to modify the agreements. The court would modify noncompetition agreements in some scenarios and render them unreasonable without modification (and, therefore, invalid) in others.7 For example, in Jones v. Deeter, despite citing Hansen, the court made no modification and found a five-year duration "per se unreasonable and therefore, unenforceable."8 It was not until the Nevada Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam9 that the court drew a clear (if more controversial) line as to when modification is appropriate.

The Nevada Supreme Court's New View under Golden Road v. Islam

In Golden Road, the Nevada Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split, held that when a noncompetition agreement extends beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's interest, the agreement is wholly unenforceable, and courts may not modify the contract to make it reasonable.10 The majority struck the noncompetition agreement at issue and took a sharp stance against modification.

Specifically, the majority stated that "we have long refrained from reforming or 'blue penciling' private parties' contracts"11 and cited to three cases that discussed blue-penciling although, notably, not in the context of noncompetition agreements.12 In support of its reasoning, the court distinguished its prior cases where it made modifications by stating that "the cases do not allow for the court's modification of a noncompetition agreement," but instead "provide for modification of a preliminary injunction rather than the original contract."13 The Nevada Supreme Court therefore asserted that it was acting in conformance with its prior decisions, as the Golden Road case was not an appeal of a preliminary injunction, but of a final judgment.14

The dissent criticized the majority's distinction of prior blue-penciling in Ellis and Hansen, and noted that such a wholesale invalidation of the prior rule would produce unduly harsh results. Further, the dissent noted that blue-penciling, which had been adopted by the majority of jurisdictions, was an appropriate equitable remedy under the facts present, where the former employee had stolen trade secrets and committed theft. Nevertheless, the majority rejected such reformation through blue-penciling and put employers on notice that overly broad terms could invalidate their noncompete agreement.

Essentially, after Golden Road, if any terms of a noncompetition agreement were found to be unreasonable on appeal from a final judgment, the entire agreement was unenforceable, and the court could not edit or narrow the noncompetition agreement in any manner. As a result, Golden Road presented a considerable challenge to employers in enforcing noncompetition agreements by taking away the potential for blue-penciling of imperfect restrictive covenants.

The Legislature's Response to Golden Road

The Golden Road decision controlled noncompetition agreements only briefly, as the Nevada legislature passed AB 276 (later enacted as Nevada Revised Statutes § 613.195) in 2017. While codifying the court's previous decisions defining reasonableness, the statute mandated blue-penciling, stating that, if an employer brings an action to enforce a noncompetition agreement, and the court determines the agreement is unreasonable, "the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised."15 The Nevada legislature effectively voided the precedent set by Golden Road by requiring courts to revise unreasonable noncompetition agreements. Thus, while Golden Road had shut down the practice of blue-penciling or reformation, NRS § 613.195 specifically requires it.

Since Golden Road and the enactment of NRS § 613.195, the Nevada Supreme Court has decided only one case concerning a noncompetition agreement. In Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc.,16 the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that a noncompetition agreement was unreasonable as to its geographic scope. However, in a footnote, the court stated that it did not modify the agreement because the parties did not request modification. The court made no mention of NRS § 613.195, as the statute was codified after oral arguments occurred in Shores.

Practical Takeaways

With NRS § 613.195, employers likely have a better chance at enforcing their noncompetition agreements than they did in the Golden Road era. Even if a court finds that the scope of an employers' noncompetition agreements is unreasonable or greater than necessary, the court is required to modify the agreement to be reasonable and enforceable under NRS § 613.195.

NRS § 613.195 is already having an impact where most of these cases are decided – at the district court level. For example, even though NRS § 613.195 was enacted in 2017, one Nevada state district court judge recently held that the statute can still apply to noncompetition agreements that were executed before the effective date of the statute. Another Nevada state district court judge cited both NRS § 613.195 and Golden Road to find a noncompetition agreement reasonable despite arguments that it was overly broad.17 NRS § 613.195 offers employers a stronger foundation to enforce their noncompetition agreements against former employees.

Even so, until a case applying the statute reaches the Nevada Supreme Court, it is unclear as to whether the Nevada Supreme Court will acknowledge and adhere to NRS § 613.195, or continue to push back with exceptions to the revision mandate. With that in mind, employers should narrowly tailor agreements to strengthen their arguments for enforceability and to be better positioned for any threat of appeal upon a granted injunction. To do so, Nevada employers should consider limiting the geographic scope of the restriction to the smallest area necessary; setting the post-termination duration to the amount of time necessary to protect business interests; and narrowing any post-termination position restrictions to the same or similar services that the employee provided.

Noncompete litigation often carries high stakes and departing executives or critical employees can severely damage their former company by moving to a competitor. An employee's move to a competitor can also involve the theft of confidential information or trade secrets, solicitation of customers, or employee raiding. Employers that proactively examine or revise their noncompetition agreements in light of these legal developments may enhance their chances to enforce noncompete agreements and, ultimately, protect their valuable interests.


1 See, e.g., Jones v. Deeter, 112 Nev. 291, 913 P.2d 1272 (Nev. 1996); Ellis v. McDaniel, 95 Nev. 455, 596 P.2d 222 (Nev. 1979); Hansen v. Edwards, 83 Nev. 189, 426 P.2d 792 (Nev. 1967).

2 See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.200.

3 Hansen, 426 P.2d at 794.

4 Id.

5 Ellis, 596 P.2d at 225.

6 Id.

7 Compare Ellis, 596 P.2d at 225, with Jones, 913 P.2d at 1275.

8 Jones, 913 P.2d at 1275.

9 376 P.3d 151 (Nev. 2016).

10 Id. at 156.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195(5) (emphasis added).

16 422 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2018).

17 See, e.g., SSA Architecture, Small Studio Assocs., LLC v. Hillyer, No. 18A771578, 2018 WL 5729032, at *1 (Nev. Dist. C. Sept. 28, 2018).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions