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

Yes, if the covenant is reasonable.

The Mississippi Supreme Court calls restrictive covenants "not favorites of the law," but "valid unless unreasonable" — and when reasonable, the courts "will not hesitate to hold the parties to their contracts" (Texas Road Boring Co. v. Parker, 1967).

A Mississippi practice can use one with a therapist, counselor or BCBA under the same reasonableness test as any other employer.

No Mississippi statute voids these covenants for behavioral health staff — as of October 7, 2026, our research found none for any clinician license — so the reasonableness test does the work, and the wording of your agreement is what a court weighs.

Mississippi sits in a shifting national picture — non-competes nationally covers the federal rule removed from the CFR in February 2026 and the states that specifically restrict non-competes for behavioral health clinicians by name.

Start with what is not on the books: no Mississippi statute governing employee non-competes was found as of October 7, 2026, so there is no Mississippi Code section to cite.

The governing law is Mississippi Supreme Court case law, and the decisions that state the framework date to the 1960s.

Texas Road Boring Co. v. Parker (1967) supplies the rule — restrictive covenants are "valid unless unreasonable" — and shows the test working: a statewide restriction was held not unreasonable because the employee's activities had covered the entirety of Mississippi.

Territory tracks the job.

Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly (1963) adds the second principle: with an overbroad territory, the court enforced the agreement only as to the reasonable part of the area rather than voiding it.

Two cautions.

Neither decision involved a clinic — and the closest clinician case this research verified is HeartSouth, PLLC v. Boyd (2003), a cardiology matter the court decided on contract expiry without deciding whether physician non-competes violate public policy.

None we found.

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

A physician rule would have reached psychiatrist hires and an APRN rule PMHNPs; none was found, so the same reasonableness case law applies to every clinician you employ.

House Bill 806 (2025) would have made non-compete provisions in health care provider contracts void and unenforceable; it died in committee on February 4, 2025.

House Bill 500 (2026) would have done the same and was the only 2026 measure with "noncompete" in its title; it died in committee on February 3, 2026.

Neither became law.

Nothing this research verified holds that a physician or therapist non-compete is void as against public policy — HeartSouth left the question undecided.

And Mississippi 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.

Mississippi's test is reasonableness, measured against what the employee actually did, and time and territory are the two levers you control.

On area, territory tracks the job.

Redd Pest's court said a restriction limited to Tupelo and a 50-mile radius would have been reasonable — the method, not a template: a pest-control employee in 1963 sets no safe radius for a therapist, counselor or BCBA in a Mississippi practice.

On overbreadth, Redd Pest again guides: the court enforced the reasonable part of the area instead of voiding the covenant.

A trimmed covenant protects less than the one you wrote, and the trimming only happens after litigation starts — so draft the territory to where your clients actually come from.

On time, the verified decisions turn on territory rather than duration, and with no non-compete statute that our research found, there is no statutory maximum to anchor to.

Set the shortest term you can connect to a concrete business interest, treating it like the rest — something a court can weigh for reasonableness.

For the protectable-interest side of a live covenant, work with Mississippi employment counsel; that question is fact-specific and beyond what these cases settle.

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.

How Mississippi courts treat client non-solicitation clauses was not researched for this page, so treat one as a restrictive covenant like any other — narrow in time and scope — and have counsel confirm current Mississippi law.

How far a non-solicit reaches is state-specific: Minnesota's 2023 non-compete ban, for one, expressly does not cover non-solicitation agreements or agreements restricting use of client lists.

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.

Because the test Mississippi's cases apply is reasonableness, drafting carries the agreement: define the territory by where your clients actually come from — statewide only if the clinician's work genuinely covers the state — and keep the term short enough to defend.

Then layer tools that restrain less.

A confidentiality clause protects your information directly, and 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 Mississippi 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 caseload list.

And a DTSA injunction cannot simply stop a former employee from taking a new job — it must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows.

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

The decisions behind this page involve a pest-control employee, a promoter for a boring company and a cardiologist — not a therapy practice or an ABA clinic.