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

Yes — with real teeth.

Because Ohio non-competes rest on case law rather than a statute, the working question is whether your clause is reasonable under the Ohio Supreme Court's Raimonde framework, not which professions a ban exempts — no ban naming a category of clinician surfaced in this page's research, though that search was not exhaustive.

Two features define it.

First, the test is general employment law: it applies the same way to a counselor, a licensed social worker, a BCBA or a psychologist on your staff.

Second, Ohio courts do not simply void a clause that overreaches — they enforce it to the extent needed to protect your legitimate interests and may modify or amend it.

An aggressive clause can therefore still bind a departing therapist in trimmed form, which is exactly why the wording matters.

For how other states treat these clauses — and the fate of the federal rule — see our guide to non-competes nationally.

Case law.

Ohio has no general non-compete statute; the controlling authority is the Ohio Supreme Court's 1975 decision in Raimonde v.

Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, which set out the reasonableness test described below.

The pending attempt to change that is Ohio Senate Bill 11 (136th General Assembly), a bill to prohibit agreements that restrain engaging in a lawful profession or business after the conclusion of an employment relationship.

It was introduced January 22, 2025 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2025, with no later action shown as of October 7, 2026 — a pending bill, not law.

As introduced, it would also bar agreements requiring a departing worker to repay training costs.

If a candidate, a competing employer or a trade-association update tells you Ohio has banned non-competes or training-repayment clauses, check the bill's current status on the Ohio Legislature's site before you act on it.

The research behind this page located no Ohio statute specific to non-competes for counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, behavior analysts, nurses or physicians; the Raimonde common-law test is the only rule the search found.

Treat that as an incomplete search rather than a clean answer — the Ohio Revised Code was not searched exhaustively — and have Ohio employment counsel confirm the point before you rely on it.

What the located rule does tell you is what kind of rule it is.

Raimonde was not a healthcare case: the covenant under review came from a veterinarian's employment, and nothing in the test turns on the clinician's license.

No profession-specific shield for a departing counselor or BCBA appears in this page's research, and no profession-specific shortcut to enforcement appears either — on the rule this page located, the same three questions of overbreadth, hardship and public injury do the deciding whoever you hire.

Under Raimonde, a covenant is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.

The court weighs factors including whether the covenant targets unfair competition or merely ordinary competition, whether it seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee, whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee, and whether it operates as a bar to the employee's sole means of support.

The full factor list also weighs the covenant's time and space limits, whether the employee had sole contact with the customer, and the employee's access to confidential information.

Time and area.

Those two factors are on the list, but no source this page relies on supplies a safe duration or radius for an Ohio clinician covenant — the research located no typical numbers — so treat any template term or mileage figure you are handed with caution and have employment counsel test it against your actual client base.

The modification rule.

Raimonde abandoned the older “blue pencil” test, under which a court could strike divisible terms but never rewrite them, because its application had “produced both arbitrary and inconsistent results.”

Ohio courts now enforce an overbroad covenant to the extent needed to protect the employer's legitimate interests and may modify or amend it rather than voiding it.

Overreach is therefore not a clean risk to the whole clause in Ohio — but the trim happens in litigation, on the court's terms, so draft to the interest you can name rather than counting on a rewrite you would like.

Non-solicitation clauses were not researched for Ohio specifically: how Ohio courts treat client non-solicits for therapists, and whether any Ohio statute addresses employee non-solicits, both sat outside the research behind this page.

What the located case law does is point at the interests such clauses serve.

The Raimonde factor list weighs whether the employee had sole contact with the customer and the employee's access to confidential information — the two interests a client non-solicit and a confidentiality clause most directly protect.

Draft the clause narrowly around the clients and referral sources the departing clinician actually worked with, and have Ohio employment counsel test it against current Ohio law before you use it.

For the wider picture — how these clauses are treated in other states, and how the professional ethics codes shape a client's transition when a clinician leaves — see our guide to non-solicitation clauses.

Because Ohio courts trim and enforce rather than void, the wording you choose decides how much protection survives.

Name the interest before you draft.

Raimonde protects the employer, so be ready to say what the clause protects — active client caseloads, referral relationships, genuinely confidential operational information — instead of reaching for a blanket practice ban.

Keep the restraint tight.

The test asks whether the covenant is no greater than required and whether the hardship on the clinician is undue.

A clause that bars a clinician's sole means of support, or stifles the very skill you hired, tests badly.

Prefer narrower instruments first.

A confidentiality clause and a tightly drawn client non-solicit restrain less than a practice ban.

Where you front a clinician's training or supervision costs, a training repayment agreement is a separate instrument with its own rules — see our guide to training repayment agreements before adding one.

Watch the bill, not the rumor.

Senate Bill 11 would remake this area if it ever passes; as of October 7, 2026 it had seen no action since its January 29, 2025 referral to committee.

Whatever you land on, have Ohio employment counsel read the final wording before it goes into an offer.