Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Dentists and Dental Staff in Massachusetts?

Yes — a Massachusetts dental practice can sign a non-compete, but only inside a statute that reads like a checklist.

The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (G.L. ch. 149, § 24L) does not ban the covenants; it sets the writing, notice, pay and length requirements a Massachusetts non-compete must satisfy to be enforced at all, and it refuses enforcement outright for several groups of workers.

The hardest line is classification.

In Massachusetts, a non-compete is unenforceable against employees classified as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, student interns, employees terminated without cause or laid off, and employees age 18 or younger.

Most hygienists are paid hourly and are non-exempt in practice, which puts them on the wrong side of that line, while a licensed dentist who is actually practicing is an exempt professional under federal rules — so § 24L's framework can reach an associate dentist.

Decide who signs based on how the role is actually paid, not the job title.

If you are the associate weighing what you signed, our guide to dentist non-compete agreements covers the worker's side — this page is the employer's Massachusetts view.

Massachusetts law on employee non-competes comes from a statute, not just case law.

The Act applies to employee non-compete agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018, so every covenant your practice signs today is measured against it.

There is no competing federal ban to navigate.

The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 Non-Compete Clause Rule was set aside in court and never took effect, and in a final rule published February 12, 2026 the agency removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations — so as of October 2026 there is no federal rule banning employee non-competes, including at dental practices.

What governs your covenant is § 24L.

How the other states compare is covered in our guide to non-competes for dental staff nationally.

Two structural rules matter before you draft.

A choice-of-law clause cannot avoid the Act's requirements for an employee who has lived or worked in Massachusetts for at least 30 days before leaving, so a multistate dental group cannot paper around the statute with its template's governing-law clause.

And if a covenant overreaches, a Massachusetts court may — in its discretion — reform it so it is valid and enforceable to the extent necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

Discretion means possible, not promised: draft to the statute rather than hoping a judge trims it for you.

Massachusetts does have profession-specific voiding statutes — just not for dentistry.

Under G.L. ch. 112, § 12X, any restriction on a Massachusetts physician's right to practice medicine in any geographic area for any period after the relationship ends is void and unenforceable.

Under G.L. ch. 112, § 74D, post-employment restrictions on where or when a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse may practice as a nurse are void and unenforceable.

Neither section mentions dentists or dental hygienists.

As of October 2026, our research found no Massachusetts statute specifically restricting non-competes for dentists or dental hygienists — the profession-specific carve-outs on the books cover physicians and nurses.

Dental staff therefore fall under § 24L like any other employee.

Read that as a gap in what this research found, not a certified statement that no such provision exists anywhere in the Massachusetts statutes, and have employment counsel confirm the current law before you rely on the absence.

What actually separates your staff is not profession but pay classification.

Federal rules treat a licensed dentist who is actually practicing as an exempt professional, and the salary-level requirements do not apply to that exemption — so § 24L can bind an associate.

Hygienists are different: they generally meet the learned-professional duties test only if they completed four academic years of pre-professional and professional study in a CODA-accredited program, and the salary-basis test still applies to them — most are paid hourly and are non-exempt in practice.

For assistants and front-office staff, classification turns on how each role is paid and what its duties actually are, so ask counsel to classify before you decide who signs what.

§ 24L puts its requirements on the face of the statute.

A Massachusetts non-compete must clear every row of this table:

Two notes on that last row.

The interests you can protect are the three the statute lists — nothing else.

Which of the three your covenant invokes, and how it is described, is drafting work for employment counsel.

Geography is drafting work too: map the restricted area onto the towns your practice actually draws patients from and have counsel review the reach.

The Act's definition of a "noncompetition agreement" leaves your most useful clauses out: covenants not to solicit or hire employees, covenants not to solicit or transact business with customers, clients or vendors, and nondisclosure agreements are all excluded from § 24L.

In a dental practice your customers are patients — so patient and staff non-solicits and NDAs stand outside the statute's 12-month cap and garden-leave requirement.

Excluded from the statute is not the same as self-enforcing.

The exclusion tells you these clauses are not capped by § 24L; it does not tell you a particular clause holds up.

Keep each one narrow — restrict who a former employee may contact, your patients and your staff, rather than where they may work — and have counsel review the language before it goes in a packet.

Confidentiality has federal backing when the information is genuinely secret.

Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the owner of a misappropriated trade secret related to a product or service in interstate commerce can sue in federal court, and business information — including a compilation such as a patient list — qualifies only if you took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it has independent economic value from not being generally known.

A DTSA injunction also cannot bar a person from entering into an employment relationship; conditions on the new job must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows.

Massachusetts rewards a careful drafter; a sloppy one is left arguing for a judge's discretionary fix.

The playbook:

• Put the covenant in the offer packet, not the onboarding pile. Delivered with the formal offer — or at least 10 business days before the start date — a written, signed agreement with the right-to-counsel statement clears the statute's at-hire requirements. Signed after employment starts, it needs consideration beyond continued employment plus 10 business days' notice, which is a much worse bargain.
• Decide who signs before you draft. Skip non-exempt staff entirely: the Act makes covenants unenforceable against them, so garden-leave money spent there buys nothing. For those roles, patient and staff non-solicits plus an NDA carry the protection.
• Price the garden leave first. At least 50% of the highest annualized base salary from the prior 2 years is real money for an associate. If you would rather not pay it, the statute's alternative — other mutually-agreed consideration stated in the agreement — has to be negotiated and written in.
• Stack the other tools. Where you fund a credential or course, training repayment agreements are a separate tool with their own rules.
• Use the sale exception deliberately. A covenant made in connection with the sale of the practice, or of substantially all of its operating assets, sits outside the Act — the relevant path when you sell to a group or buy one.
• Confirm licensure at hire. A covenant only matters if the person can practice — our guide to dentist licensure in Massachusetts covers the licensing path.
• Have Massachusetts employment counsel review the final language before it goes into an offer packet.