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

Nothing in what our research reviewed bans non-competes in Nebraska, but the test is easy to get wrong.

As of October 2026, our research found no general non-compete statute and no general ban; the rules that decide enforceability come from court decisions, above all the Nebraska Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in H & R Block Tax Servs. v. Circle A Enters., 269 Neb. 411 (2005).

Two rules from that case do most of the work.

First, a restriction is enforceable only if it is no greater than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer.

Second, a covenant built on client goodwill is valid only if it keeps the former employee from working for or soliciting clients the employee actually did business with and had personal contact with.

For a therapy practice, that points to one defensible shape: a clause tied to the clinician's own caseload.

A geographic ban on serving anyone, regardless of whether the clinician ever saw them, is the radius-based shape our research describes as unenforceable under it — and because Nebraska courts will not trim an overbroad covenant to fit, an overreaching clause can end up worth nothing.

Nebraska is one approach among many.

How other states treat behavioral health clinicians is in our guide to non-competes nationally.

Case law, not a statute.

As of October 2026, our research found no general Nebraska statute governing employee non-competes; the decision that supplies the test we describe is the Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling in H & R Block Tax Servs. v. Circle A Enters., 269 Neb. 411 (2005).

Circle A lays out the test Nebraska applies: the restriction must be reasonable in the sense that it is no greater than reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate business interest.

Every covenant you sign has to clear that gate.

Two other features of the decision matter as much as the test itself:

• Nebraska courts will not fix a bad draft. The court has long held that it is not the function of the courts to reform a covenant not to compete in order to make it enforceable, and that a court must either enforce the covenant as written or not enforce it at all — even where the contract itself purports to let the court reform it.
• Sale-of-business covenants get a warmer reception. Nebraska courts are generally more willing to uphold promises to refrain from competition made in the context of the sale of goodwill as a business asset than promises made in connection with contracts of employment.

The practical consequence for an employer: in an employment contract, precision is everything, because the court reading it will not edit it for you.

None that our research found for your direct hires.

Our research found no Nebraska statute specifically restricting non-competes for counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, behavior analysts, physicians or nurse practitioners employed directly by a practice, as of October 2026.

Whatever license a directly hired clinician holds, the same reasonableness test governs their covenant.

The one health-care statute our research did find targets staffing agencies, not direct hires.

LB 921, approved by Nebraska's Governor on April 14, 2026, is a staffing-agency law:

• What it does. Section 11 bars a health care staffing agency from including in any contract with a worker or a health care entity a noncompete clause restricting the worker's employment opportunities. It also bars the agency from requiring liquidated damages, employment fees or other compensation if the worker is subsequently hired by the health care entity.
• Whom it covers. LB 921 defines a health care staffing agency as a business that provides temporary workers to provide direct services in a separate, third-party health care entity; the definition also includes a health care technology platform. A practice that hires its own staff is not that business.
• When it takes effect. The staffing-agency sections, Sections 7 to 15 including the non-compete ban, become operative July 1, 2027.

Read it for what it is: a restriction on staffing agencies, not a ban on health-care non-competes in Nebraska.

If you staff through temp agencies, though, it matters to you twice over — from the operative date, agency contracts restricting your workers are barred, and so are the fees agencies sometimes charge when you hire a worker they placed.

Nebraska's test has three moving parts, and none of them comes with a statutory number:

• Legitimate business interest. The covenant has to protect something real. In the employment setting, the interest the verified case law in our research addresses is client goodwill.
• Scope. The restriction must be no greater than reasonably necessary to protect that interest. For a goodwill covenant, Circle A defines the outer edge: it is valid only if it restricts the former employee from working for or soliciting the former employer's clients or accounts with whom the former employee actually did business and had personal contact.
• Time and area. The verified Nebraska authority in our research supplies a standard, not a safe harbor of months or miles, so have employment counsel judge the specific clause rather than copying a duration or radius formula from a template or another state.

In practice, the personal-contact rule is what does the limiting work.

A clause that lets a departing clinician work anywhere but reaches only the clients they personally served is the defensible shape.

A clause that bars them from serving anyone in a region is the overbroad shape — and because Nebraska courts will not reform covenants, overshooting does not get trimmed back to something enforceable.

It is not enforced at all.

The client non-solicit is the clause Nebraska case law describes.

The personal-contact rule is written in terms of working for or soliciting clients, so a Nebraska client non-solicit limited to the clients a clinician actually served and had personal contact with is the defensible form.

Anchor it to the clinician's own caseload, and have counsel settle how the client list is defined and how far back it reaches.

Employee non-solicits are a separate question.

The verified Nebraska authority we cite addresses covenants over clients and customers, not staff recruitment, so how a Nebraska court would treat a clause barring a departing clinician from recruiting your employees is not settled by the material in our research.

Treat that as a question for employment counsel before you rely on one.

Client transitions also carry obligations under professional ethics codes, which shape how a departure is handled no matter what the contract says.

Our guide to non-solicitation clauses covers that backdrop and what other states allow.

• Draft to the caseload, not the map. If you want a covenant, tie it to clients the clinician actually served and had personal contact with. That is the defensible form under the Nebraska test.
• Assume the court will not save you. Nebraska enforces a covenant as written or not at all, even where the contract invites judicial revision — so the editing you skip at signing is the protection you lose in a dispute. Have Nebraska employment counsel read the final wording before an offer goes out.
• Prefer a non-solicit where it fits. A client non-solicit limited to the clients a clinician actually served tracks what the case law describes, and it avoids betting on a court that will not rewrite an overbroad covenant.
• Price training with repayment terms instead. Where the worry is recouping the cost of supervised-hours training or specialty credentialing, training repayment agreements are a separate tool with their own state-by-state limits — our guide to training repayment agreements explains how they work.
• Structure ownership changes deliberately. Nebraska courts are generally more willing to uphold covenants made in the sale of a business than those in employment contracts. When you buy, sell or merge a practice, it is worth counsel's time to make sure the covenants sit in the right documents.
• Revisit agency contracts before July 1, 2027. From that date, LB 921 bars health care staffing agencies from noncompete clauses and from charging fees when you hire a worker they placed. If your staffing model runs through agencies, read those contracts now.
• Invest in keeping people. A covenant is not a retention strategy. For the practical work of keeping clinicians — caseloads, supervision, pay and career path — see our guide to clinician retention.