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

No. Oklahoma voids employee non-competes by statute.

Title 15, Section 217 makes every contract that restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business void to that extent, except as Sections 218, 219 and 219A allow — and an associate dentist's promise not to practice near your office is exactly the kind of restraint it voids.

The same rule covers the rest of your schedule: hygienists, assistants and front-desk staff all stand on the same statute.

The carve-out that governs employment covenants is Section 219A.

Effective June 4, 2001, it lets a former employee who agreed not to compete go to work in the same or a similar business anyway, as long as they do not directly solicit sales from your established customers — and any provision in an employer-employee contract that conflicts with that section is void and unenforceable.

What an Oklahoma practice keeps is narrower but real: a solicitation limit drawn in the statute's own terms, a staff non-solicit with its own statutory footing, and a genuine non-compete when you sell the practice.

This page is the employer's view — for the dentist's side, see our guide to dentist non-compete agreements.

Oklahoma's rule is statutory: 15 O.S. §§ 217–219B do the work.

Section 217 is the general rule — a contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to that extent.

Sections 218, 219 and 219A are the exceptions the statute names for itself.

Section 219A is the one that governs employment.

It reaches an agreement with an employer, whether made in writing or verbally, not to compete after the employment relationship ends: the former employee may work in the same or a similar business as the former employer as long as they do not directly solicit sales of goods or services from the former employer's established customers.

Section 219A(B) then closes the loophole from the other side — any provision in an employer-employee contract that conflicts with the section is void and unenforceable.

The federal picture does not change this.

The FTC'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 FTC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations — so there is no federal rule banning employee non-competes.

The FTC says it can still challenge individual non-competes case by case when they are unjustified, overbroad or anticompetitive.

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

There is no Oklahoma dentist rule to draft around.

The restraint-of-trade statutes — 15 O.S. §§ 217–219B — contain no separate rule for dentists or other health care workers, and § 219A applies to any person who agreed with an employer not to compete.

There is also no income threshold that makes a covenant enforceable for better-paid staff: § 219A covers any employee whatever they earn.

An employment covenant is either inside a statutory exception or it is void.

One limit on that certainty: the research behind this guide covered the restraint-of-trade statutes themselves, and Oklahoma's professions title was not searched line by line — counsel can confirm no dental-specific provision sits elsewhere in the statutes.

In states that enforce non-competes, the courtroom fight is over duration, geography and legitimate business interest.

Oklahoma's statute takes that fight off the table for employment covenants: the restraint is void to that extent unless a statutory exception applies, and a provision that conflicts with § 219A is void and unenforceable.

There is no number of months or miles you can shrink a clause to that makes it hold.

So the working question for an Oklahoma practice is not how short the covenant can be, but which exception covers it.

Two do real work here, and each carries its own limits.

Section 218, the sale-of-goodwill exception, lets the seller of a business agree not to carry on a similar business within a specified county and any counties contiguous to it, or within a city or town, while the buyer carries on the business.

Section 219A, the employment carve-out, polices conduct rather than territory: the limit is on directly soliciting sales from established customers, and it comes with no month count or mile radius attached.

Staff non-solicits are on solid statutory ground.

Since November 1, 2013, 15 O.S. § 219B has provided that a clause barring an employee or independent contractor from soliciting the business's employees or contractors is not a restraint of trade — so your hygienist's agreement can bar them from poaching your assistants, and your associate's can bar them from recruiting your other associates.

The patient side runs through § 219A, not § 219B.

The limit the statute preserves bars direct solicitation of the former employer's established customers, and two drafting cautions follow.

First, the statute speaks of customers — whether an Oklahoma court would treat dental patients as established customers is not resolved by the research behind this guide, so have counsel draft the clause in the statute's own terms.

Second, a clause that reaches further — barring all contact with patients, or the nearby job itself — conflicts with § 219A and is void and unenforceable.

For the patient list itself, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act is the backstop: business information, including compilations such as a patient list, is a trade secret only if the owner took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it has independent economic value from not being generally known.

The DTSA lets the owner of a misappropriated trade secret related to a product or service in interstate commerce sue in federal court, but an injunction may not prevent 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.

How these clauses are structured: see our guide to patient and staff non-solicits.

None of this leaves you unprotected — it changes which tools do the work:

• Swap the non-compete for the statute's own limit. State the restriction as § 219A does — no direct solicitation of the practice's established customers. Delete the non-compete's mile radius and term, and let counsel decide how long the solicitation limit should run.
• Add a staff non-solicit under § 219B. Bar employees and contractors from soliciting your staff — a clause the Oklahoma statutes treat as no restraint of trade at all.
• Put the real non-compete where it belongs: the sale documents. If you sell (or buy) a practice, § 218 lets the seller agree not to compete in a specified county and contiguous counties, or in a city or town, while the buyer carries on the business.
• Treat the patient list as the asset it is. A trade-secret claim needs reasonable measures to keep the list secret — decide what those look like in your practice, with counsel, rather than relying on a contract clause alone.
• Use the contract terms that never fight the statute. Notice periods, schedule expectations and repayment terms for funded training all do work a void covenant cannot — how to structure training repayment agreements is its own question with its own rules.
• Confirm licensure before the start date. A covenant only matters if the person can practice — our guide to dentist licensure in Oklahoma covers what the state requires.
• Have Oklahoma employment counsel review the final agreement before it goes into an offer packet.