In February, I updated the our “low-wage” threshold/criteria chart for all of the annual threshold changes.
Today, I am updating the chart to add Virginia’s amendment expanding the scope of the low-wage worker exemption to cover nonexempt workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (effective July 1, 2025). There are no other substantive changes.
Background:
Eleven states and Washington, D.C. adopted minimum compensation thresholds or other criteria related to protecting workers from noncompetes based on wage or similar criteria.
In order of effective date, they are: Oregon (2008; updated 2022), Illinois (2016; updated 2022), Massachusetts (2018), Maine (2019), Maryland (2019; updated 2023; refined in 2024), New Hampshire (2019), Rhode Island (2020), Virginia, (2020; updated 2025), Washington (2020), Nevada (2021), Colorado (2022), and Washington, D.C. (2022).
But they are not all static. Seven of these thresholds are determined annually.
Updates:
The seven thresholds that are determined annually are in Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Washington, D.C.
The remaining states either have no regular increases (Illinois, Maryland, and New Hampshire) or use a different standard (Massachusetts and Nevada).
Some of these states also have thresholds for the use of not just noncompetes, but other restrictive covenants as well. They are as follows: nonsolicitation agreements (Colorado, Illinois, possibly New Hampshire and, depending on the scope of the covenant, Washington); no-recruit agreements (Illinois); no-service agreements (possibly Colorado, and Virginia and Washington); and conflict-of-interest/anti-moonlighting policies and restrictions (Maryland, Washington, and Washington, D.C.).
All of these thresholds and the agreements to which they apply are all in the following chart (note the footnote):
We will continue to keep you posted as things develop.
Remember that this chart is updated as states change their thresholds and criteria. The most up-to-date version of the chart will always be available here.
In the meantime, you may also want to check your agreements more generally to make sure you are complying with the noncompete laws in all states in which you have employees. Our 50-state noncompete chart (the first of its kind, created in 2010, and updated regularly since then to keep track of the ever-changing noncompete laws) can serve as a starting point.
* * *
Firm resources:
We know how hard it is to keep up with the ever-changing laws and requirements around the country for how you can protect your trade secrets, customer goodwill, and the integrity of your workforce. To help, we have created the resources below (available for free). Each chart is regularly updated to reflect the latest developments.
![]() | 50-State Noncompete Law Chart, the first of its kind and regularly updated (downloadable PDF) (to be updated for the new exemptions in Illinois and Pennsylvania)50-State and Federal Trade Secret Law Chart, providing a comparison of the trade secrets laws nationally to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (downloadable PDF) |
![]() | Chart of Noncompete “Low-Wage” Thresholds and Criteria (downloadable) |
![]() | Notice requirements summary chart, providing details for each of the 8 states (plus D.C.) that has notice requirements related to noncompetes (downloadable PDF) |
![]() | “Changing Trade Secrets | Noncompete Laws” (dedicated blog page) now provides a current detailed summary of the changing landscape of trade secret laws and noncompete laws around the country, state by state and at the federal level |
![]() | Trade secret and other legitimate business interest protection plan strategy and checklist |
We hope you find all of these resources useful. More will be coming.
And please note, we are grateful for all of the input we’ve received over the years. We welcome any suggestions for improvements that you may be willing to share.
* * *
A huge thank you to Erika Hahn for all of her extraordinary help in tracking and monitoring all of the recent noncompete and trade secret legislative and caselaw developments.









