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
- Partner
John Milligan practices in the firm’s Labor & Employment Group where he regularly counsels clients as to best labor and employment practices, litigation avoidance, dispute resolution techniques, records retention, contract ...
- Associate
Kelzé Riley is an associate in the firm's Labor & Employment Group. Her practice includes a wide range of labor and employment matters.
Kelzé earned her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 2024. While in law ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Title VII
- NLRB
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Diversity
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- NLRA
- Labor Law
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Federal Trade Commission
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ADAAA
- Whistleblower
- Unions
- United States Supreme Court
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- SECURE Act
- Environmental Law
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?
- Uncertain Ground: The NLRB, EEOC, and the Fallout of Presidential Firings
- UPDATED: What’s Next for the Department of Labor? The Confirmation of Lori Chávez-DeRemer
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Where Things Stand in Response to Actions Taken by President Trump
- Recent Executive Orders’ Impact on the EEOC
- NLRB Acting General Counsel Rescinds Numerous Predecessor’s Memoranda
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case