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

Tennessee's rules for a dental hire split into two tracks, and which one applies depends on the role and the pay.

The first is the § 63-1-148 safe harbor for healthcare providers — licensed dentists and dental hygienists are covered: a restriction in a written agreement signed by both parties, lasting two years or less, and limited in area to the greater of a 10-mile radius from the provider's primary practice site or that site's county — or, with no mileage limit, one that bars practice only at facilities where the employer provided services.

A covenant on those terms is deemed reasonable.

The second track is the wage floor.

Under new Tennessee Code § 50-1-211, an employer may not require, request or enforce a non-compete against an employee whose annualized compensation is less than $70,000, and a non-compete signed in violation is void.

Many hygienists and assistants may fall below that line, so check each employee's pay before you hand over a covenant.

Whether an assistant is also a covered provider under the safe harbor is unsettled — the healthcare-specific section below takes it up.

Neither rule is a blanket ban — the 2026 law bars non-competes only under the $70,000 line, not across the board.

How Tennessee compares with non-competes for dental staff nationally, from the ban states to the dentist-specific statutes and income thresholds, is in our national guide.

Start with the case law, because it still supplies the test.

In Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom (2005), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that covenants not to compete are disfavored in Tennessee and strictly construed in favor of the employee, but are enforceable when the employer has a legitimate business interest to protect and the time and territory limits are reasonable.

Udom itself went further for the physician whose covenant was at issue, holding non-competes like it inimical to public policy and unenforceable.

The legislature responded with § 63-1-148, which took effect January 1, 2008 and rebuilt the healthcare-provider rule by statute — so do not read Udom's public-policy holding as the current rule for a covered provider such as a dentist.

The newest layer is Public Chapter 934 (HB 1034/SB 995), signed by the Governor on May 7, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026.

It adds two sections: § 50-1-210 on time presumptions and modification, and § 50-1-211 on the $70,000 wage floor.

The new rules apply to agreements entered into, renewed or amended on or after July 1, 2026 — an agreement signed, renewed or amended before then sits outside them.

Tennessee's rule for dentists is statutory, not just case law. § 63-1-148 applies to healthcare providers licensed under chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 of Title 63, and chapter 5 governs the practice of dentistry and of dental hygiene under the Board of Dentistry — so licensed dentists and dental hygienists are covered providers.

The General Assembly's fiscal summary for the 2026 bill likewise lists dentists among the providers the statute covers, alongside podiatrists, chiropractors, medical and osteopathic physicians and psychologists.

One gap: whether dental assistants count as chapter 5 providers is not settled by the sources behind this page, because assistant registration sits in Board of Dentistry rules the review did not reach.

Confirm with Tennessee employment counsel rather than assuming either way.

The $70,000 wage floor is different — the text sets a pay test, not a license one, and covers employees generally.

Two more healthcare-specific points.

A 2026 federal court memorandum filed May 29, 2026, Upperline Healthcare v. Hoover, from the Middle District of Tennessee, held that § 63-1-148 sets a safe harbor rather than an upper limit and found a 15-mile radius reasonable for a podiatrist — but the ruling does not bind Tennessee state courts, so treat it as a signal, not a rule.

And sales are treated separately: under § 63-1-148(b), a restriction tied to the purchase or sale of a provider's practice (or substantially all its assets) may restrict practice if the duration and area are reasonable, with a rebuttable presumption that what the parties agreed is reasonable.

The through-line from Udom to the 2026 statute is proportionality: the covenant protects a legitimate business interest, with time and territory limits that are reasonable.

• A legitimate business interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court enforces a non-compete only when the employer has one to protect, and covenants are strictly construed in favor of the employee.
• Time. From July 1, 2026, § 50-1-210 builds the presumptions into statute: a court presumes a restraint on a former employee or independent contractor of two years or less reasonable in time (where the covenant is not tied to a sale or an ownership interest) and presumes a longer one unreasonable. For the owner or seller of all or a material part of a business or professional practice, the presumption runs the other way — a restraint is presumed reasonable if it lasts the longer of five years or the period during which payments are made to the seller.
• Area. For covered providers, the safe harbor's geography — the greater of a 10-mile radius from the primary practice site or that site's county, or a facility-only restriction — is deemed reasonable, and Upperline suggests a court can accept more. For everyone else, courts weigh the territory against the interest.

Modification is built in too: § 50-1-210 lets a court modify a restrictive covenant governed by the section to render it reasonable and enforceable — an overdrawn covenant may come back enforced on the court's terms, not yours.

Who is under the $70,000 line

Before any of this, run the payroll check. § 50-1-211 counts wages, salary, commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses and other remuneration, and annualizes an hourly employee's pay as the hourly rate times 40, then by 52.

You cannot require, request or enforce a non-compete against an employee under $70,000 annualized, and a non-compete signed in violation is void.

The 2026 law leaves these alone. § 50-1-210 expressly does not prohibit enforcing confidentiality agreements, client or customer non-solicits, or employee non-solicits — for a dental practice, that means clauses keeping a departing team member from soliciting your patients and your staff remain available, including for employees under the $70,000 line.

What a non-solicit buys is narrower reach by design: it restricts who a former employee may solicit, not where they may work — the restraint the new sections do not prohibit.

How these clauses are structured, and where other states draw the line, is covered in our guide to patient and staff non-solicits.

Treat scope and duration as drafting questions for Tennessee employment counsel: the sources behind this page establish that the statute does not prohibit these clauses, not the outer limits a Tennessee court will accept for one.

• Run the pay check before the paper. Annualize each employee's compensation — the hourly rate times 40, then by 52, for hourly staff — and treat anyone under $70,000 as a no-non-compete hire: rely on a non-solicit and confidentiality terms instead.
• Draft associates into the safe harbor. A written agreement, signed by both parties, running two years or less, and restricted to the greater of a 10-mile radius from the primary practice site or the site's county — or barring practice only at your facilities — is deemed reasonable under § 63-1-148(a).
• Use the sale carve-outs when you buy or sell. § 63-1-148(b)'s rebuttable presumption on duration and area, plus § 50-1-210's seller presumption (the longer of five years or the payment period), give sale-of-practice covenants more room than employment covenants.
• Think about training costs separately. If you want to recover the cost of training a new graduate, a training repayment agreement is a different tool with its own state rules — our guide to training repayment agreements covers how they work and where they are restricted.
• Confirm the license before the covenant. The healthcare statute attaches to licensed providers, so check that an associate's Tennessee license is active — dentist licensure in Tennessee covers what the state requires.
• Have a Tennessee employment attorney draft or review the agreement — especially one for a dental assistant, where safe-harbor coverage is unsettled, and any agreement you will renew or amend on or after July 1, 2026, which brings it under the new sections.

If you want the other side of the table, our guide to dentist non-compete agreements covers the worker's view nationally.