Utah has one of the more specific statutory frameworks governing non-compete agreements in the country. The Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants Act (Utah Code Ann. 34-51-101 et seq.), enacted in 2016 and amended in subsequent sessions, caps post-employment non-competes at one year and applies additional limits to non-competes for broadcasting employees. Common law continues to apply where the statute is silent, primarily on reasonableness of geographic scope and scope of activity. The one-year cap is the headline rule, but the statute also creates fee-shifting in favor of employees who successfully challenge non-competes, which incentivizes careful drafting and creates real leverage for employees.
What is a Enforceability?
A non-compete in Utah is governed by the Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants Act, Utah Code Ann. 34-51-101 et seq. The statute caps post-employment non-competes at one year from the date of termination of employment. A non-compete that exceeds one year is void. The statute also provides for fee-shifting: an employer that seeks to enforce a non-compete and loses must pay the employee's reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and damages. The statute does not displace common law on reasonableness of scope. Non-solicits of customers and employees are generally not subject to the one-year cap, but must still be reasonable under common law. Broadcasting employees have additional specific protections.
Red flags to watch for
Utah Code Ann. 34-51-201 caps post-employment non-competes at one year. A non-compete exceeding one year is void. This is a strict statutory bright line — the entire restriction is unenforceable if it exceeds one year.
Utah common law continues to require reasonable geographic scope tied to the employer's actual market area. Statewide or multi-state restrictions for a regional employer will be narrowed under common law even within the one-year cap.
Utah requires the covenant to protect a legitimate business interest. Protection from competition alone is not enforceable under common law, even within the statutory one-year period.
Utah common law requires meaningful consideration. While the statute does not specifically address consideration, common law continues to require a specific benefit for mid-employment covenants.
Utah courts apply standard liquidated damages analysis. The amount must be a reasonable forecast of harm rather than a penalty. The statute's fee-shifting provisions also create exposure for employers seeking unreasonable damages.
Utah Code Ann. 34-51-301 to -304 provides specific rules for broadcasting employees, including limits on geographic scope and conditions for enforcement. Broadcasting employees should review this section carefully.
Utah Code Ann. 34-51-201 is a substantive cap. Tolling or extension clauses that effectively extend the post-employment restriction beyond one year are inconsistent with the statute and likely unenforceable.
Your legal rights
Utah non-competes are governed primarily by the Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants Act, Utah Code Ann. 34-51-101 et seq., which caps post-employment non-competes at one year and provides for fee-shifting in favor of successful employee challenges. Common law continues to govern reasonableness of scope. Utah Code Ann. 34-51-301 to -304 specifically regulates non-competes for broadcasting employees. The Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.) provides independent trade secret protection. Successful challenges to non-competes can recover attorney fees and damages, creating real leverage for employees.
Questions to ask before you sign
- 1Does the post-employment non-compete period exceed one year? If so, it is likely void under Utah Code Ann. 34-51-201.
- 2What specific legitimate business interest does this restriction protect?
- 3Is the geographic scope tied to the area where the employer actually does business?
- 4What consideration was provided for signing this restriction?
- 5If you are a broadcasting employee, does the covenant comply with Utah Code Ann. 34-51-301 to -304?
- 6Are the activities described specifically or broadly?
- 7Has the employer included any tolling or extension clause that would extend the one-year period?
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.