You signed a non-compete when you started the job. Maybe you read it carefully. Maybe you barely glanced at it because you were focused on the offer letter and the start date. Either way, the clause was buried in a stack of onboarding paperwork and you signed it because that’s what new employees do. Now the same employer that made you sign it has fired you, possibly for reasons you believe were illegal, and you’re staring at a clause that says you can’t work for a competitor or start your own business in your field for the next 12 or 24 months. Wrongful termination lawyers in Maryland deal with this collision regularly: an employee is terminated under circumstances that may constitute wrongful termination, and the employer simultaneously tries to enforce a non-compete that locks the employee out of their livelihood.
Whether the employer can actually do that depends on a set of factors that Maryland courts weigh case by case.
How Maryland Courts Evaluate Non-Compete Agreements
Maryland does not have a comprehensive statute governing non-compete agreements for most employees, though recent legislation has imposed restrictions on their use with lower-wage workers. For employees earning above the statutory threshold, enforceability is governed by common law principles developed through decades of Maryland appellate decisions.
Maryland courts treat non-competes as restraints on trade and construe them narrowly. The employer bears the burden of proving that the agreement is reasonable, and reasonableness is evaluated across several dimensions.
Scope of restricted activity. A non-compete that prohibits the employee from working in any capacity for any competitor is more likely to be struck down than one that restricts the employee from performing the same type of work for direct competitors. Courts look at whether the restriction is tailored to protect a legitimate business interest or whether it effectively prevents the employee from earning a living in their profession.
Geographic reach. A non-compete covering a 10-mile radius around the employer’s office operates differently than one covering the entire Mid-Atlantic region. The geographic scope must bear a reasonable relationship to the area where the employer actually conducts business and where the employee’s competitive activity could cause harm.
Duration. Maryland courts have upheld non-competes ranging from six months to two years depending on the circumstances, but longer restrictions face greater scrutiny. A two-year non-compete for a senior executive with deep knowledge of proprietary strategy may be reasonable. The same restriction imposed on a mid-level sales representative may not be.
Legitimate business interest. The employer must demonstrate that the non-compete protects something worth protecting: trade secrets, confidential business information, client relationships that the employee developed using the employer’s resources, or specialized training the employer provided. A non-compete that simply prevents competition without connecting to a protectable interest will not survive judicial review.
If the court finds any element unreasonable, Maryland’s approach has traditionally been to invalidate the entire restriction rather than rewriting it to make it enforceable. This differs from states that apply a “blue pencil” doctrine, where courts can modify overbroad clauses. Maryland courts have shown some willingness to sever distinct provisions, but they generally will not reform an unreasonable clause into a reasonable one. An overbroad non-compete is more likely to be thrown out than trimmed.
Maryland’s Non-Compete Restrictions for Lower-Wage Employees
In 2019, Maryland enacted legislation (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. ยง 3-716) prohibiting employers from enforcing non-compete agreements against employees earning less than or equal to $15 per hour or $31,200 annually. This law recognized that non-competes imposed on hourly and lower-wage workers served no legitimate business purpose and merely restricted their economic mobility.
The threshold applies at the time the restriction would take effect, not at the time the agreement was signed. An employee who earned $18 per hour when they signed the non-compete but was earning $14 per hour when they were terminated may fall within the protection, depending on the specific circumstances and timing of the enforcement attempt. If you were earning at or below the threshold when you were fired, the non-compete is likely unenforceable regardless of any other analysis.
The Wrongful Termination Dimension
Here’s where the question gets more complicated, and more interesting for employees who believe they were fired illegally.
Can Wrongful Termination Invalidate the Non-Compete?
Maryland courts have not issued a bright-line ruling declaring that wrongful termination automatically voids a non-compete agreement. But the circumstances of the termination are relevant to the enforceability analysis, and several legal principles work in the terminated employee’s favor.
The most significant is the consideration argument. In Maryland, a non-compete signed at the beginning of employment is generally supported by adequate consideration because the employment itself is the consideration. But when an employer terminates the employee, particularly without cause or for an illegal reason, the exchange that supported the agreement has been destroyed by the employer’s own action. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that an employer cannot benefit from a restrictive covenant it effectively repudiated by wrongfully terminating the employee, and Maryland’s equitable framework provides room for the same analysis.
Non-competes are enforced through equitable relief, typically an injunction. Equitable relief requires the party seeking it to come to court with “clean hands.” An employer that fired an employee for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons and then seeks to enjoin that employee from working in their field is asking the court for equitable assistance while engaging in inequitable conduct. The clean hands doctrine gives Maryland courts a basis for denying enforcement even without a statutory prohibition.
The reasonableness analysis also shifts when the termination was involuntary. Courts evaluating whether a restriction is reasonable consider the totality of the circumstances, and a non-compete imposed on an employee who chose to leave looks different from one imposed on an employee who was pushed out. The employee who was fired didn’t make a voluntary choice to leave; the employer ended the relationship unilaterally. Enforcing the non-compete on top of the termination compounds the economic harm and makes the restriction harder to justify as reasonable.
How Wrongful Termination Lawyers in Maryland Challenge Non-Competes After Termination
The strategic approach to non-competes in the wrongful termination context involves challenging the agreement’s enforceability on multiple fronts simultaneously. The wrongful termination claim addresses the legality of the firing. The non-compete challenge addresses the employer’s right to restrict the employee’s future employment after having terminated them, potentially illegally.
These two claims reinforce each other. Evidence of wrongful termination strengthens the argument that the employer lacks clean hands and that enforcing the non-compete would be inequitable. Evidence that the non-compete is overbroad or lacks a legitimate business interest supports the broader narrative that the employer is using legal mechanisms to control and punish the employee rather than protect genuine competitive concerns.
In practice, many employers use the threat of non-compete enforcement as leverage during the termination process. They offer severance in exchange for the employee’s agreement not to challenge the termination or the non-compete. The severance package may include a release of claims that waives the wrongful termination action along with an affirmation of the non-compete’s enforceability. An employee who signs that package without legal review may surrender both their right to challenge the termination and their freedom to work in their field.
This is one of the most consequential moments in any wrongful termination case involving a non-compete. The severance offer may look generous. It may also be a fraction of what the employee would recover through a wrongful termination claim, combined with the economic value of being free from a non-compete restriction. Understanding the true value of what’s being offered and what’s being given up requires someone who can assess both sides of the equation.
What to Do If You’ve Been Fired and Have a Non-Compete
The worst course of action is to assume the non-compete is enforceable and limit your job search accordingly without getting a legal opinion. Many non-competes that look binding on paper turn out to be unenforceable under Maryland law because they’re overbroad, lack a legitimate business interest, or are unreasonable in scope, geography, or duration. Adding wrongful termination to the mix creates additional arguments against enforcement that don’t exist when the employee leaves voluntarily.
Do not sign a severance agreement or a reaffirmation of the non-compete without having an attorney review it. The employer’s timeline for signing is the employer’s preference, not your obligation. Take the time to understand what you’re agreeing to.
If the employer sends a cease-and-desist letter threatening to enforce the non-compete, don’t panic and don’t ignore it. Forward it to an attorney who can evaluate whether the agreement is likely to hold up in court and advise you on how to respond. Many employers rely on the intimidation factor of the letter itself, knowing that the cost of actually litigating a non-compete is high and that many employees will comply out of fear rather than challenge the restriction.
You Shouldn’t Lose Your Career Twice
Being fired is damaging enough. Being fired and then told you can’t work in your own profession for a year or two turns a wrongful termination into an economic catastrophe. Maryland law doesn’t automatically void non-competes after termination, but it provides multiple avenues for challenging their enforceability, particularly when the termination itself was unlawful. Wrongful termination lawyers in Maryland who also handle restrictive covenant disputes can evaluate both the termination and the non-compete together and develop a strategy that addresses the full scope of the employer’s conduct. The Mundaca Law Firm represents employees facing this exact situation across Maryland. If you’ve been fired and a non-compete is threatening your ability to move forward, contact the firm before you sign anything or assume the restriction is binding. It may not be.
