Special Feature: CLE Article #21*
Written by Amanda Brookhyser and Ruth Turley
Nevada employers need workable tools to protect goodwill and confidential information; employees need a fair opportunity to continue earning a living after they move on. Nevada’s non‑compete regime seeks to honor both interests. Courts may preserve a reasonable restraint through targeted trimming, but they will not draft a new deal for the parties. The distinction—revise, not rewrite, otherwise known as “blue-penciling”—defines Nevada’s middle path. Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott, 139 Nev. 459, 465–66, 537 P.3d 883, 887–88 (2023).
I. Nevada’s statutory framework: Blue-penciling as remedy, not drafting aid.
Nevada codifies non‑compete enforcement in NRS 613.195. A restraint is void unless supported by valuable consideration, is narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests, is free from undue hardship and is appropriate in relation to the consideration given. NRS 613.195(1). For agreements executed on or after June 3, 2017, courts confronting unreasonable time, geographic or activity restrictions must revise the overbroad term and enforce the covenant as revised. NRS 613.195(6).
The statute, however, confers a remedial tool—not a drafting license. Nevada’s Supreme Court has drawn a bright line: courts may revise existing terms, but they may not rewrite the agreement or supply missing terms. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88.
That line produces a practical test. Where enforcement requires narrowing what the parties actually wrote, revision is available. Where enforcement would require adding terms, selecting boundaries the contract never expressed or re‑architecting the restraint, revision crosses into impermissible rewriting and the covenant fails. Contractual overreach is not cured by the availability of judicial revision, and NRS 613.195 does not reward aggressive drafting in the hope a court will later impose reasonable limits. Judicial revision presupposes that reasonable boundaries already exist and merely require tightening, not reconstruction. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88; Golden Rd. Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 132 Nev. 476, 487–88, 376 P.3d 151, 159–60 (2016).
II. Statutory landmines courts will avoid.
Several statutory provisions bar enforcement altogether rather than inviting judicial trimming.
Nevada prohibits non‑competes for employees paid solely on an hourly basis and mandates fee‑shifting when an employer attempts to enforce one. NRS 613.195(4), (7). The statute also codifies customer choice: a former employee may do business with a former customer who voluntarily moved without solicitation, and any contrary restriction is void. NRS 613.195(2). Following a reduction in force, a non‑compete is enforceable only so long as the employer continues salary, benefits or severance. NRS 613.195(5).
Courts do not revise restraints that are statutorily void. Where the legislature has removed certain restraints from the realm of reasonableness altogether, judicial modification plays no role. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88.
III. What permissible revision looks like.
When statutory tripwires are not implicated, Nevada courts revise covenants through surgical adjustments grounded in business reality rather than abstract competitive fear.
In Mia Aesthetics Clinic LV, PLLC v. Chua, the court illustrated the point and confined the scope of prohibited activity to procedures the employer actually offered, reduced the geographic radius from 50 miles to five and shortened the duration from two years to one. 543 P.3d 664, 2024 WL 591729, at *3 (Nev. Jan. 31, 2024) (table). In Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. Young, the court limited a non‑compete to roles related to the employee’s prior services, reduced geography to a 100‑mile radius around the single store where he worked, and tailored a non‑solicitation provision to customers with whom the employee had personal contact. No. 2:23‑cv‑01178‑APG‑EJY, 2024 WL 967194, at *8–11 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2024). In these instances, the court was not adding terms that were not bargained for; instead, the court was tightening up pre-negotiated terms to narrow them to a more reasonable breadth that was not an undue burden on the employee’s ability to earn a living while still protecting the employer’s legitimate business interests.
Each decision reflects the same method. Courts narrow restraints by reference to provable facts about the employer’s business and the employee’s role. By contrast, courts consistently refuse “drastic modifications” that would amount to drafting a new agreement—an approach shared across jurisdictions and endorsed in Nevada. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88; Eichmann v. Nat’l Hosp. & Health Care Servs., Inc., 719 N.E.2d 1141, 1149–50 (1999); Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard, 780 P.2d 1168, 1172–73 & n.19.
A common example illustrates where Nevada draws the line. A Las Vegas sales lead bound by a two‑year, statewide ban on any employment with any competitor—paired with a non‑solicitation clause covering all customers—presents classic overbreadth. Appropriate blue-penciling in this instance might involve trimming such a restraint to a one‑year term, a five‑ or 10‑mile radius around the relevant store, sales of the same product line or a non‑solicit limited to personal‑contact customers. What it does not permit is supplying missing terms or inventing boundaries the parties never expressed. Mia Aesthetics, 2024 WL 591729, at 3; Ahern Rentals, 2024 WL 967194, at 8–11; Tough Turtle, 139 Nev. at 465–66, 537 P.3d at 887–88.
IV. Geography, role and evidence: The three pillars of reasonableness.
Most non‑compete disputes turn on three variables: where the employer actually competes, what the employee actually did and whether the record proves either.
Geography must match proven markets. Courts expect a prima facie showing that a geographic radius reflects the employer’s operational footprint; nationwide restraints routinely falter when business operations are localized. Shores v. Glob. Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. 503, 505–06, 422 P.3d 1238, 1240–41 (2018).
A reasonable scope must turn on what the employee’s actual role was. Prohibitions on working in any capacity for a competitor—even in non‑competitive roles—sever the connection between restraint and competitive risk. Nevada courts require a nexus between the employee’s former duties and the prohibited activity. Restrictions untethered from the employee’s functional role risk becoming restraints on employment rather than competition. Courts therefore favor limits keyed to defined activities—selling a specific product line, managing identified accounts or providing particular services—rather than identity‑based bans tied solely to a competitor’s name. Johnson v. INTU Corp., 2019 BL 170113, at *4–5 (D. Nev. May 10, 2019); Golden Rd., 376 P.3d at 155–60; Ahern Rentals, 2024 WL 967194, at *8–11.
Evidence supplies the final anchor. Reasonableness lives on maps, account lists, revenue by territory, role descriptions and training records. Where the evidentiary record does not match the restraint, courts trim—or deny—relief. Capturing those anchors at the drafting stage positions a judge to narrow rather than invent. Shores, 422 P.3d at 1240–41; Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88.
Notably, covenants executed before June 3, 2017, fall outside the statute’s revision mandate. Re‑papering those agreements with severable, evidence‑backed limits restores the possibility of judicial revision without rewriting. Paws Up Ranch, LLC v. Martin, 463 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1167–69 (D. Nev. 2020); Golden Rd., 376 P.3d at 155–60.
V. Nevada in the national landscape
Nevada’s statutory approach is a reasonable middle ground because our approach to blue-penciling occupies ground between jurisdictions that broadly reform overbroad covenants and those that refuse modification altogether.
Arizona’s traditional “cross‑out only” model illustrates the utility of step‑downs—grammar‑severable alternatives that allow courts to strike to reasonableness without adding terms. Lessner Dental Labs., Inc. v. Kidney, 492 P.2d 39, 41–42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971); Compass Bank v. Hartley, 430 F. Supp. 2d 973, 980–81 (D. Ariz. 2006). Delaware, by contrast, cautions against salvaging extreme overbreadth in employment settings. Delaware Elevator, Inc. v. Williams, 2011 WL 1005181, at *10–11 (Del. Ch. Mar. 21, 2011); FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783, at 8 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020). Wyoming has abolished blue‑penciling altogether. Hassler v. Circle C Res., Inc., 505 P.3d 169, 178 (Wyo. 2022).
VI. Drafting for revision—not reinvention
Effective drafting shares a single objective: limiting judicial revision by anchoring restraints to provable facts.
Define competition by function, not employer identity. Describe prohibited activities by product line, customer segment and channel rather than barring employment by any competitor. Johnson, 2019 BL 170113, at 4–5; Golden Rd., 132 Nev. at 481–88, 376 P.3d at 155–60.
Right‑size geography with evidence. Select the smallest circle that captures proven markets; maps and territory‑based revenue support preliminary relief. Shores, 134 Nev. at 505–06, 422 P.3d at 1240–41.
Calibrate duration. A restrictive covenant of one year has been found by many Nevada courts to be a reasonable duration and often aligns with sales cycles and relationship decay. Longer terms demand stronger proofs tied to role and training. Mia Aesthetics, 2024 WL 591729, at 3.
Draft for strike‑to‑fit. Pair severability and judicial‑modification clauses with step‑downs (e.g., 12/9/6 months; 10/5 miles) so a court may select a reasonable bracket without adding terms. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88; Compass Bank, 430 F. Supp. 2d at 980–81.
Use targeted restraints. Non‑solicitation provisions and NDAs often address the core risk with fewer externalities; courts favor non‑solicits limited to personal‑contact customers. Ahern Rentals, 2024 WL 967194, at 10–11.
Plan for no‑go zones. Exclude hourly roles; tie post‑RIF restraints to continued compensation; and respect customer choice. NRS 613.195(2), (4)–(5), (7).
Build the injunction record. Memorialize territories, accounts, revenues, duties and training. Courts cannot revise intelligently without concrete anchors. Shores, 134 Nev. at 505–06, 422 P.3d at 1240–41.
VII. The bottom line
Nevada rewards precision and punishes overreach. Employers who draft for minimal revision—not reinvention—are best positioned to obtain meaningful relief: a reasonable radius tied to actual markets, a duration aligned with relationship half‑life, and a scope pegged to the employee’s true competitive functions. Employers who rely on blanket bans, speculative territories, or universal employment prohibitions are likely to find their restrictive covenants unenforceable and not subject to blue-penciling. Tough Turtle, 537 P.3d at 887–88.
About the authors
Amanda Brookhyser, a shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, is an accomplished employment law attorney who leads high-stakes litigation and advises clients on complex workplace legal issues. With over a decade of experience, she represents employers and individuals in disputes involving discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour violations and compliance with federal and state employment laws. She also has significant experience as lead counsel in complex business disputes and as a commercial litigator.
Ruth Turley, an associate at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, is a dynamic young litigator focusing on labor and employment, dispute resolution and general corporate matters. Leveraging an MBA and a background as a researcher on alternative dispute resolution, she advises business owners and management teams on compliance related to a range of state and federal regulations, including VOSH, FLSA and FMLA. She also experience in civil litigation and corporate real estate matters.
About the article
About: The CCBA’s Article #21: “Nevada’s Middle Path on Non‑Competes: Revise, Don’t Rewrite” offers 1.0 Credit of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) to Nevada lawyers who complete the test and order form per the offer described in the Communiqué (May 2026, pp. 22-26). See Communiqué May 2026 (PDF file, 4MB). The CCBA is an Accredited Provider with the NV CLE Board.
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (May 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2026/communique-may-2026/.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.