Hawaii has taken an aggressive stance against non-compete agreements, particularly in the technology sector. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 480-4 (as amended by Act 158 in 2015) bans non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in employment contracts for technology workers entirely. For other workers, Hawaii courts apply a strict reasonableness test under common law — and the burden falls heavily on the employer.
What is a Enforceability in Hawaii?
A non-compete in Hawaii is a contract provision restricting an employee from competing with the employer after employment ends. Under HRS § 480-4(c), it is unlawful to include any non-compete or non-solicit clause in an employment contract with a technology worker, defined broadly to include software development, IT, data analytics, network engineering, and related fields. For non-technology workers, non-competes are evaluated under a three-prong common law test: (1) necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (2) reasonable in time and geographic scope, and (3) not unduly burdensome on the employee or contrary to public policy.
Red flags to watch for
HRS § 480-4(c) makes this an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act. The clause is void, and the employer may face statutory penalties.
The statute prohibits both non-compete AND non-solicit clauses for technology workers. Non-solicits of customers in tech contracts are equally void.
For non-tech workers, statewide restrictions are rarely reasonable in Hawaii's distributed island economy. Most enforceable non-competes are limited to a specific island or a defined commercial area.
Hawaii courts have repeatedly held one year as the outer bound of reasonableness for most non-executive roles. Longer terms attract heightened scrutiny.
Employers sometimes draft narrow job titles or duties to argue an employee is not a 'technology worker' under § 480-4. Hawaii's definition is broad and outcomes-focused — software work in any industry typically qualifies.
If the underlying restraint is void, the forfeiture is unenforceable. For non-tech workers, liquidated damages disconnected from actual harm are typically struck down as a penalty.
Your legal rights
Hawaii Revised Statutes § 480-4(c), enacted by Act 158 (2015), prohibits non-compete and non-solicit clauses in employment contracts with technology workers and classifies them as unfair methods of competition. The Hawaii Supreme Court applies a three-prong reasonableness test to other non-competes — see 7's Enterprises, Inc. v. Del Rosario, 111 Haw. 484 (2006). Under HRS § 480-13, you may have a private right of action for an unfair-competition violation, including treble damages for businesses and the right to recover attorneys' fees. Technology workers may sign non-disclosure agreements protecting trade secrets, but those are evaluated separately under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, HRS chapter 482B.
Questions to ask before you sign
- 1Am I a 'technology worker' under HRS § 480-4(c), and if so, why is this clause in my contract at all?
- 2What legitimate business interest is the employer trying to protect, and is this clause genuinely necessary?
- 3Is the geographic scope tailored to where I actually serviced customers, or does it sweep more broadly?
- 4Is the duration tied to a defensible business need, or is it a default 12, 18, or 24-month term?
- 5What consideration am I receiving for signing — is it more than a continued at-will job?
- 6If I challenge this clause and win, am I entitled to attorneys' fees under HRS § 480-13?
Disclaimer: This guide is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract law varies by jurisdiction and individual circumstances. Always consult a qualified legal professional before making decisions based on this information.