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

Yes — a Nevada dental practice can sign and enforce a non-compete, but only inside a statute that measures the covenant on four tests.

Under NRS 613.195, a Nevada non-compete is void unless it is supported by valuable consideration, imposes no greater restraint than required to protect the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is appropriate in relation to that consideration.

Miss any one of them and the covenant is void and unenforceable.

The statute also draws a line between your people that has nothing to do with job titles.

A Nevada non-compete may not apply to an employee paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities — so whether a hygienist, assistant or front-desk hire can be bound turns on how you pay them, not on what you call the role.

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 Nevada view.

Nevada's law on employee non-competes rests on a statute: NRS 613.195.

It was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 2017 and amended in 2021, and the official NRS chapter page, revised September 9, 2026, shows no later amendment.

Its four tests — valuable consideration, no greater restraint than required to protect the employer, no undue hardship, and proportion between the restraint and the consideration — are the whole gate.

They are statutory conditions, not judicial preferences a court balances after the fact: the covenant is void unless all four are met.

Which law governs a dental practice specifically is the next section's question.

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 NRS 613.195.

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

On the question a dental owner asks first: as of October 7, 2026, this research found no Nevada statute specifically restricting non-competes for dentists, dental staff or other health care workers — NRS 613.195 applies to all employers alike.

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

What separates your staff instead is pay structure.

Under NRS 613.195(3), a Nevada non-compete may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities.

Whether a given hygienist, assistant or front-office employee is covered therefore depends on the pay plan you actually run — the statute's words reach solely-hourly pay, not a profession.

One question this research did not resolve: whether hourly-plus-production or hourly-plus-commission pay counts as "paid solely on an hourly wage basis" under the statute.

Do not assume a production component lifts the bar — have Nevada employment counsel review the compensation plan before you decide who signs.

And know the cost of guessing wrong: under NRS 613.195(7), the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the covenant applied to an hourly employee or the employer restricted service to unsolicited former clients.

Enforcing where the statute says you cannot is not just a lost motion; it is a fee award against the practice.

Nevada puts its requirements on the face of the statute.

The first four rows are the tests a covenant has to pass; the last two are rules that decide what happens when a supported covenant overreaches or when a layoff ends the job:

How much time and how much area a Nevada court will accept for a dental practice is not something this page's sources put a number on — sizing the restricted period and the geographic reach to what your practice actually needs to protect is drafting work for employment counsel.

And treat the revision rule as a backstop, not a plan: the statute directs the court to fix a supported covenant that overreaches, but the fix arrives after you have funded a lawsuit, so draft to the tests instead of counting on a judge to trim your covenant later.

The layoff row is easy to miss.

If you downsize or restructure and want the covenant to keep running, you have to keep the pay coming — salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including severance — for as long as you want the restraint to hold.

Start with the limit the statute puts on every covenant's reach.

Under NRS 613.195(2), a Nevada non-compete may not restrict a former employee from serving a former customer or client who was not solicited and voluntarily chose to leave, provided the employee otherwise complies with the covenant.

In a dental practice the customers are your patients — so a patient who was never solicited and books with your former associate on their own decision is outside what the covenant can block.

A clause restricting who a former employee may contact — your patients and your staff — rather than where they may work is a different instrument from a non-compete, with its own limits.

This page's research verified Nevada's non-compete statute, not how Nevada courts treat patient and staff non-solicits, so have counsel draft and review the language.

Our guide to patient and staff non-solicits explains how these clauses work, what they can and cannot restrict, and where they run into trouble.

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.

Nevada rewards a precise drafter and bills a sloppy one.

The playbook:

• Sort the pay plans before you draft. Anyone paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities, is out of scope for a covenant — and enforcing against an hourly employee anyway triggers the mandatory attorney-fee award. For those roles, this research did not verify whether a Nevada non-solicit can stand in — rely on a confidentiality agreement, and have counsel review any non-solicit language under the limits in the section above.
• Build real consideration into the deal. The covenant must be supported by valuable consideration and be appropriate in relation to it — decide what the employee actually receives for the restraint and write it into the agreement.
• Keep the reach to what the practice needs. Measure the restricted period and area against the patients the practice actually serves. A court must revise a supported covenant it finds unreasonable in time, area or scope, but that correction costs a lawsuit to obtain.
• Decide the layoff question at signing. If employment ends in a reduction in force or restructuring, the covenant runs only while the pay continues — budget for that before you rely on the restraint.
• Stack the other tools. Where you fund a credential or course, training repayment agreements are a separate tool with their own rules. Keep the confidentiality agreement current, and keep the patient list genuinely restricted, so the trade-secret protections stay available.
• Confirm licensure at hire. A covenant only matters if the person can practice — our guide to dentist licensure in Nevada covers the licensing path.
• Have Nevada employment counsel review the final language before it goes into an offer packet.