Wisconsin Senate Bill SB657

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/14/25
• Refer: 11/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Report Pass: 2/10/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber and amend 103.465; to amend 103.465 (title), 103.465 (2) (a) 1. and 103.465 (2) (a) 2.; to create 103.465 (2) and 103.465 (2) (a) 1m. of the statutes; Relating to: noncompete clauses for medical practitioners.

Impact

This bill directly impacts the current statutory framework concerning employment agreements in the healthcare sector. By prohibiting long-term noncompete clauses, SB657 seeks to empower medical practitioners and enhance the healthcare workforce's mobility. This change is expected to facilitate a more competitive job market for healthcare professionals, thereby enabling them to seek opportunities that best suit their skills and preferences without the fear of legal repercussions post-employment. Advocates of the bill argue that it will promote better patient care by allowing practitioners to work in various settings without being constrained by restrictive contracts.

Summary

Senate Bill 657 aims to reform the use of noncompete clauses for medical practitioners in Wisconsin, specifically targeting advanced practice registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, and psychologists. The legislation stipulates that any noncompete agreement that prevents a medical practitioner from working with other employers for over 24 consecutive months after their employment ends will be considered an unreasonable restraint, rendering it illegal and unenforceable. Additionally, if a medical practitioner's employment is terminated by their employer for any reason, the noncompete clause will also be deemed void.

Contention

Opponents may contend that while protecting healthcare workers is important, such a bill could lead to increased competition among healthcare providers, which might affect the long-term stability and operational integrity of healthcare practices. Concerns may also arise regarding the potential for disruption in continuity of care, especially if many practitioners leave their positions soon after gaining experience or specialized training within their initial employment. The balance between ensuring worker freedom and maintaining necessary stability in healthcare practices is likely to be a focal point in discussions surrounding SB657.