Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Therapists and Behavioral Health Staff in Illinois?

Whether you can enforce a covenant against a therapist, BCBA or other staff member in Illinois depends first on what you pay them, then on how the agreement was presented and drafted.

Illinois regulates these covenants by statute — the Freedom to Work Act (820 ILCS 90) — through earnings floors, a presentation process, and a mental-health-specific carve-out.

Where each rule lands:

This page covers Illinois only.

For the other states — including the ones that bar non-competes for behavioral health clinicians outright — see non-competes nationally.

Illinois law on non-competes is statutory.

The Freedom to Work Act (820 ILCS 90) says an employer may not enter into a covenant not to compete with an employee whose actual or expected annualized rate of earnings is $75,000 per year or less; the floor rises to $80,000 per year on January 1, 2027.

That quoted floor reaches "any employee": counselors, social workers, psychologists, prescribers and behavior analysts sit under the same figure as any other employee, and the Act's clinician-specific rule (below) narrows where a covenant can be enforced rather than lowering the floor for anyone.

The definition is also wider than the classic "don't work nearby" clause.

Within the Act, a covenant not to compete reaches agreements that impose adverse financial consequences on a former employee if the employee engages in competitive activities — so a forfeiture or repayment trigger tied to competing sits inside the statute, not outside it.

The Act has teeth beyond unenforceability, too: the Illinois Attorney General may seek a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each violation, or $10,000 for each repeat violation within a 5-year period, against a pattern and practice of violating the Act.

The Freedom to Work Act includes a rule aimed squarely at mental health care.

For any non-compete or non-solicit entered into after January 1, 2025 (Public Act 103-915), 820 ILCS 90/10(f) makes the covenant unenforceable with respect to the provision of mental health services to veterans and first responders by a licensed mental health professional, if enforcement is likely to increase the cost or difficulty for a veteran or first responder seeking mental health services.

"Licensed mental health professional" is a closed list: a person licensed under the Clinical Psychologist Licensing Act, the Clinical Social Work and Social Work Practice Act, the Marriage and Family Therapy Licensing Act, the Nurse Practice Act, or the Professional Counselor and Clinical Professional Counselor Licensing and Practice Act.

For your staff, that reaches Illinois-licensed psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and clinical professional counselors, and Nurse Practice Act licensees — which include psychiatric APRNs.

Two groups a behavioral health practice may employ are not on that list: physicians — your psychiatrists — and behavior analysts.

The carve-out does not name them, so 820 ILCS 90/10(f) does not reach a covenant with a psychiatrist or a BCBA; the general floors and requirements apply.

This page has not checked Illinois rules specific to physicians, so confirm a psychiatrist's covenant with Illinois employment counsel.

"First responders" means any persons currently or formerly employed as emergency medical services personnel, firefighters or law enforcement officers.

And note what the rule protects: the care, not the clinician generally.

Outside services to veterans and first responders, the Act applies the same earnings floors and requirements to a covered clinician's covenant as to anyone else's.

Above the floors, a covenant still has to be built correctly.

Under 820 ILCS 90/15, an Illinois covenant not to compete is void unless it is supported by adequate consideration, is ancillary to a valid employment relationship, is no greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.

Adequate consideration is defined too (820 ILCS 90/5): the employee either worked for the employer for at least 2 years after signing an agreement containing the covenant, or received other professional or financial benefits adequate to support it.

With a covenant signed at hire, the two-year branch is satisfied only by at least 2 years of continued employment after signing — unless other benefits support the covenant from the start.

Process is a separate validity requirement: a non-compete or non-solicit is void unless the employer advised the employee in writing to consult with an attorney before entering into the covenant and gave the employee at least 14 calendar days to review it.

Don't draft broad and count on a judge to trim it.

Illinois courts may, in their discretion, reform or sever an overbroad covenant, but 820 ILCS 90/35 warns that extensive judicial reformation may be against the public policy of the State.

Price the downside of enforcing a covenant that fails as well: an employee who defeats an employer's claim to enforce a non-compete or non-solicit recovers from the employer all costs and all reasonable attorney's fees (820 ILCS 90/25).

How many years and how much territory a compliant covenant may cover is not answered by the floors above — that tailoring is a drafting decision to make with Illinois employment counsel rather than by copying another state's clause.

Non-solicits run on a lower floor than non-competes: Illinois bars a covenant not to solicit with an employee whose earnings are $45,000 a year or less, rising to $47,500 on January 1, 2027.

The definition covers both directions you would actually use — restrictions on soliciting the employer's employees, and restrictions on soliciting or interfering with the employer's relationships with its clients and prospective clients.

The client non-solicit and the employee non-solicit in your template are therefore both covenants under the Act, with the same floor, the same written attorney-advice and 14-day review requirements, and the same veterans and first responders carve-out.

Two practical notes.

First, the floor is earnings-based, so which of your roles it catches depends on what you pay — benchmark the role before deciding (our therapist hiring hub is the starting point for that role).

Second, a non-solicit is not the only thing that shapes a departure: the professional ethics codes your clinicians follow also govern how client transitions are handled.

We cover the national picture on non-solicitation clauses — which states allow which version, and what the codes ask of a departing clinician — separately.

Audit what you already use against each employee's actual or expected annualized earnings — the statute's own test — and remember both floors rise on January 1, 2027, so a covenant you can enter into at a given pay rate now may be barred for a future hire at the same pay.

Build the formalities into your offer workflow.

The written advice to consult an attorney and the 14 calendar days to review are validity requirements, not courtesies — a covenant signed out of the first-day onboarding stack without them is void.

Give the non-solicit the same treatment.

Fund what you keep.

If a clinician clears the floor and you still want a covenant, plan the consideration branch you will rely on — at least 2 years of employment after signing, or other adequate professional or financial benefits — and keep the scope matched to a legitimate business interest rather than drafting broad and hoping for judicial reformation.

Use the levers the Act leaves open.

If part of your caseload is veterans and first responders, retention for the clinicians who serve it has to run on the employment relationship itself, because 820 ILCS 90/10(f) takes covenants off the table as to that care for covered licensees when enforcement is likely to make that care costlier or harder to get.

And because the Act's definition reaches agreements imposing adverse financial consequences on a former employee for competing, a repayment or forfeiture trigger tied to competing is inside the statute, not a workaround.

Where a repayment is triggered by leaving rather than competing, different questions apply — we cover training repayment agreements separately.

Finally, put the finished language in front of Illinois employment counsel: the floors are earnings-based and rise again on January 1, 2027, the carve-out turns on the services and the caseload, and whether a clause reads as a covenant at all is the judgment that fee-shifting and Attorney General penalties make expensive to guess at.