Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers

On January 22, 2025, Ohio Senators Louis W. Blessing (R-Colerain Township) and William P. DeMora (D-Columbus) introduced Senate Bill 11 (“SB 11”), which aims to prohibit certain post-employment agreements in the state of Ohio. If passed, this bipartisan bill would place Ohio among the minority of states with such legislation. As state lawmakers consider this departure from Ohio’s current stance of enforceability of these agreements, there are four key provisions employers should be aware of:

1. SB 11 Defines “Worker” Broadly

Under SB 11, a “worker” is an individual who “provides services for an employer, including an employee, independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, a sole proprietor providing service to a client or customer, and an individual who provides service through a business or nonprofit entity or association.” This expansive definition would require employers to review nearly all existing agreements for compliance. Moreover, this broad definition increases the likelihood that more individuals will be considered workers, potentially exposing employers to additional legal obligations and liabilities.

2. SB 11 Bans the Enforcement of Certain Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants

SB 11 invalidates any agreement (or provision of any agreement) that prohibits a worker from:

  • working for another employer for a specified period of time;
  • working in a specified geographical area; and/or
  • working for another employer in a capacity similar to the work the worker performed for the employer.

Additionally, SB 11 will void any agreement requiring a worker to reimburse their employer for training or any other services provided to develop the worker’s skillset. If passed, employers will be prohibited from entering into or enforcing existing agreements containing the prohibited language. 

3. SB 11 Prospectively Bans Forum/Venue Selection Clause

SB 11 prohibits any provision in an agreement requiring workers based in Ohio to litigate claims outside Ohio unless the worker is individually represented by counsel in negotiating the terms of the agreement. If passed, an employer’s ability to enforce forum or venue selection clauses will be limited, potentially increasing litigation costs and complicating the management of employment-related claims.

4. Potential Penalties for Employers

SB 11 grants a private right of action for prospective or current workers presented with an agreement containing any of the prohibited provisions. Alternatively, these workers may file a complaint with the Ohio Attorney General or the Ohio Director of Commerce regarding the unenforceable provision. If an investigation reveals a “likely” violation, the Attorney General will bring an action on behalf of the worker or prospective worker. Notably, where the worker prevails, it is entitled to costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and damages.

Additional context: It is important to note that the Federal Trade Commission’s Non-Compete rule was blocked by a federal court and the National Labor Relations Board’s acting General Counsel rescinded the memoranda issued by his predecessor regarding non-competition agreements. Thus, there is presently no national ban on non-competition agreements.

What does this mean for employers? Ultimately, the fate of post-employment restrictive covenants and agreements in Ohio will be determined this term. As written, SB 11 does not seem to affect the enforcement of restrictive covenants prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information, the disclosure of trade secrets, and the solicitation of customers or employees. SB 11 is also silent regarding non-competes in the sale of a business. The bill is in the early stages of the legislative process, but seems to be garnering key support. Considering the significant shift this will cause on the employment landscape in Ohio, it is unclear whether the bill will gain the support of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. KMK’s Labor and Employment Law Group will continue to monitor SB 11 and is prepared to assist as you re-examine employment agreements and internal policies regarding post-employment restrictive covenants.

KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.

ADVERTISING MATERIAL.

© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved

Subscribe

Topics/Tags

Select
Jump to Page
Close