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

Yes, if the covenant is drafted and timed well.

Kentucky courts have consistently upheld non-competition restrictions that are reasonable and not in restraint of trade, and no Kentucky statute was found that treats behavioral health clinicians differently.

Three decisions do most of the work.

Creech v. Brown (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2014) makes timing decisive: a covenant an existing at-will employee signs without new consideration fails.

Hammons v. Big Sandy Claims Service (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1978), quoting Ceresia v. Mitchell, supplies the reasonableness test; Kegel v. Tillotson (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2009) confirms the blue pencil rule — a court may narrow an overbroad clause rather than void it.

Kentucky is one state in a shifting national picture — non-competes nationally covers the federal rule that was set aside and later removed, and the states that bar covenants for behavioral health clinicians.

Kentucky's governing law is case law, not a statute.

There is no KRS section setting a general non-compete rule for employees — and, as of October 7, 2026, no statute specifically for clinicians was found either — so the rules come from court decisions.

Hammons v. Big Sandy Claims Service (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1978), quoting Ceresia v. Mitchell (1951), states the test: a restraint is reasonable if, given the nature of the business, the parties' situation and the circumstances, it gives the employer only fair protection without interfering with the public interest or imposing undue hardship on the person restricted.

Hodges v. Todd (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1985) adds that Kentucky courts have consistently upheld restrictions that are reasonable and not in restraint of trade.

Hodges was a sale-of-business case: the court let a trial court enforce a covenant with no geographic limit by setting a reasonable one from the parties' intent — a holding about a business sale, not a green light for omitting territory from an employment agreement.

The practical turning point is Creech v. Brown (2014), where the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to enforce a covenant an existing at-will employee had signed: he received no consideration for it.

After signing, nothing changed — no promotion, no raise, no specialized training.

Creech contrasted Central Adjustment Bureau v. Ingram (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1981), where employees received specialized training, promotions and higher wages, and pointed to Higdon Food Service v. Walker (1982), where a new written contract spelling out position and pay counted as new employment.

None that change your contracts.

As of October 7, 2026, no Kentucky statute specifically restricting non-competes for counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, behavior analysts, physicians or APRNs was found.

A physician or APRN rule would have reached psychiatrist and PMHNP hires; no such rule was found, so the same case law applies to the clinicians you employ.

The legislature keeps trying.

Kentucky Senate Bill 324 (2024) would have barred health service providers, as employers, from requiring employees to sign non-competes; it was referred to the Senate Health Services Committee on February 29, 2024 and was not enacted.

Senate Bill 234 (2025), a general ban, went to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 20, 2025 and was not enacted.

House Bill 813 (2026) would have barred employers from requiring covered employees to sign covenants; its last action was referral to the House Economic Development & Workforce Investment Committee on March 9, 2026.

None passed.

Kentucky appellate decisions applying a non-compete to a therapist, counselor or behavior analyst were not researched for this page — the doctrine is general employment law, and counsel should confirm the latest cases.

Kentucky's test is one overall judgment: given the nature of the business, the parties' situation and the circumstances, does the covenant give the employer only fair protection without interfering with the public interest or imposing undue hardship on the clinician?

Time and territory are the two levers you control.

On time, the closest guidepost is Hammons, where the court upheld a one-year restriction.

Do not copy that number blindly — the employee was a claims adjuster, not a clinician, and no case this page covers involved a therapy practice, so there is no Kentucky duration you can lift for one.

Pick the shortest term that protects what you built.

On area, Hammons is also the cautionary tale: its 200-mile territory was overbroad, and the trial court narrowed it to one office instead of voiding the covenant.

That instinct is the blue pencil rule from Kegel — Kentucky courts may reform or amend restrictions that are overly broad or burdensome.

Treat it as a backstop, not a drafting strategy: it happens after someone has sued, and the clause you get is the court's trim, not yours.

The non-solicit deserves as much attention as the non-compete — arguably more, because it is what stops a departing clinician from taking your caseload.

Kentucky statutes or appellate decisions on client non-solicitation clauses specifically were not researched for this page, so treat one as a restrictive covenant like any other — narrow in time and scope — and have counsel confirm the current state of Kentucky law.

States treat patient non-solicits differently from non-competes, and the difference depends on the state — Minnesota's 2023 non-compete ban, for one, expressly does not cover non-solicitation agreements.

Do not copy a clause from another state's template.

Our guide to non-solicitation clauses maps the states and covers the ethics codes that shape a client's transition when a clinician leaves.

Get the signature timing right first: have every clinician sign the covenant at hire, when the job itself is the exchange.

If an existing employee must sign, Creech shows what works: specialized training, a promotion or higher wages — or a new written agreement spelling out position and pay, the way Higdon did.

Continued at-will employment alone failed.

Then layer tools that restrain less.

A confidentiality clause protects your information directly.

Where your practice funds supervision hours or a credential, a training repayment agreement is a separate instrument with its own rules — see our guide to training repayment agreements before adding one to a Kentucky offer.

Protect the client list on its own footing.

Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, information such as a client list is a trade secret only if the owner takes reasonable measures to keep it secret and it has independent economic value from not being generally known — so lock down exports and limit who can pull a full caseload list.

Last, have Kentucky employment counsel review the wording before it goes into an offer letter.

The Kentucky cases behind this page involve claims adjusters, hay brokers and haulers — not therapy practices.