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.
© 2026 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
John Milligan leads KMK Law’s Admiralty & Maritime Practice and serves as co-leader of the firm’s Transportation & Logistics Group. His practice focuses on complex maritime disputes, regulatory compliance, and high-stakes ...
- 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 Donald P. Klekamp College of Law at the University of Cincinnati in ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- FMLA
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- Diversity
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Employer Rules
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Overtime Pay
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- National Enforcement Plan
- OSHA
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Holiday Policies
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Workplace Accommodations
- Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Paid Leave Laws
- Litigation
- Tax Credit
- IRS
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Accommodation
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- 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
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Affirmative Action
- Compliance
- EEOC
- Immigration
- Labor & Employment Law
Recent Posts
- Authorization Without Documentation: Employers Left with I-9 Compliance Questions Following TPS Expirations for El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine
- EEOC Moves to Rescind 2012 Criminal Background Check Guidance
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies

