To enact sections 4119.01, 4119.02, 4119.03, and 4119.04 of the Revised Code to prohibit agreements that restrain engaging in a lawful profession or business after the conclusion of an employment relationship.
SB 11 would create a new chapter of the Ohio Revised Code prohibiting post-employment restrictions that prevent a worker from pursuing lawful work or operating a business after the employment relationship ends. The bill defines “worker” broadly to include employees, independent contractors, interns, volunteers, apprentices, sole proprietors, and people providing services through business or nonprofit entities. It bars employers from using or enforcing noncompete-style provisions, geographic work bans, repayment or penalty clauses tied to leaving employment, and certain training or immigration-related reimbursement requirements that function as exit penalties.
The bill also limits forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions in employment agreements for workers who primarily live and do business in Ohio. For covered disputes arising in Ohio, employers could not require workers to litigate outside the state or waive Ohio substantive legal protections, unless the worker is individually represented by counsel and negotiates those terms. The bill creates a private right of action, allows complaints to be filed with the attorney general or the director of commerce, and authorizes enforcement actions, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
If enacted, SB 11 would significantly restrict the use of noncompete agreements and related post-employment restraints in Ohio, voiding prohibited contract terms entered into, modified, or extended on or after the effective date. It would also shift dispute resolution for many Ohio-based workers toward Ohio courts and Ohio law, while preserving certain government loan repayment or forgiveness programs and excluding some consumer financial law matters. The bill would add enforcement authority for both private litigants and state officials, with the attorney general and department of commerce sharing complaint-handling responsibilities.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of worker mobility and anti-restriction protections. The measure is framed as a labor-market reform aimed at preventing employers from locking workers into jobs or imposing financial penalties for leaving. No contrary arguments are documented in the supplied context, but the structure of the bill suggests it is intended to be a strong pro-worker, anti-noncompete proposal.
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of the restrictions and the bill’s impact on employer contracting practices. Employers may object to the ban on noncompetes, repayment obligations, and venue/choice-of-law clauses, especially because the bill applies broadly to employees and many nontraditional workers, and because it voids covered provisions rather than merely limiting them. Another likely issue is the exception for workers represented by counsel, which may be seen as too narrow by supporters or too permissive by opponents. No specific committee disputes or vote splits are available in the provided record.