Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A (2026)

Noncompetition agreements

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person who makes an agreement with an employer, whether in writing or verbally, not to compete with the employer after the employment relationship has been terminated, shall be permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer as long as the former employee does not directly solicit the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services from the established customers of the former employer. B. Any provision in a contract between an employer and an employee in conflict with the provisions of this section shall be void and unenforceable. Added by Laws 2001, c. 406, § 4, emerg. eff. June 4, 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Howard v. Nitro-Lift Tech., L.L.C., 273 P.3d 20 (Okla. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard v. Nitro-Lift Tech., L.L.C., 273 P.3d 20 (Okla. 2011). · cites it 16× “¶ 9 On October 18, 2011, we issued a show cause order directing the parties to address the effect of 15 O.S.2001 § 219A on the cause. Briefs were filed on October 28" and October 31° by the employees and the employer, respectively.”
Chris Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A. The Prosperity contract went beyond that in prohibiting the bankers from soliciting “competing business from customers or prospective customers of the Bank” if the banker had made contact with the customer, or had access to the customer’s…”
Autry v. Acosta, Inc., 410 P.3d 1017 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “The trial court stated: "Article 4(a)(i) of Autry's Non-Solicitation Agreement with Acosta violates the provisions of 15 O.S. § 219A by its use of the word 'indirectly,' and further finds that that provision of the Non-Solicitation Agreement can be easily corrected to comply…”
Inergy Propane, LLC v. Lundy, 2009 OK CIV APP 8 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008). “[11] ¶ 34 Second, Lundy's argument that he cannot be prohibited from using his general knowledge and skill and that argument's reliance on Loewen is misplaced.”
Eakle v. Grinnell Corp., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (E.D. Okla. 2003). “” 15 O.S. § 219A(A). Otherwise, the employee is “permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer.”
TruGreen Ltd. P'ship v. Oklahoma Landscape, Inc. (N.D. Okla. 2021). · cites it 12× “15 O.S. §219A (emphasis added). The TruGreen Agreements—in violation of 15 O.”
Whinery v. Premier Funeral Mgmt. Grp. IV LLC (W.D. Okla. 2022). “at 10-13 (discussing Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A); Pl.’s Reply Br.”
Griffin v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (N.D. Okla. 2025). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A(A). Although the Agreement contains a severability clause (Section 6.”
Griffin v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A(A). Although the Agreement contains a severability clause (Section 6.”
Exencial Wealth Advisors, LLC v. Downing, 2025 NCBC 18 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2025). “Oklahoma’s state courts, including the Oklahoma Supreme Court, have instructed that “15 O.S. 2001 § 219A is the Legislature’s pronouncement on Oklahoma’s public policy regarding covenants not to compete.”
Ricky D. Parker & James Myers v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. (Tex. App. 2015). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15 §§ 219A(A), 219B; Pre-Paid Legal Servs.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A(A) — 5 cases
Chris Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A. The Prosperity contract went beyond that in prohibiting the bankers from soliciting “competing business from customers or prospective customers of the Bank” if the banker had made contact with the customer, or had access to the customer’s…”
Eakle v. Grinnell Corp., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (E.D. Okla. 2003). “” 15 O.S. § 219A(A). Otherwise, the employee is “permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer.”
Griffin v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (N.D. Okla. 2025). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A(A). Although the Agreement contains a severability clause (Section 6.”
Griffin v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2025). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A(A). Although the Agreement contains a severability clause (Section 6.”
Ricky D. Parker & James Myers v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. (Tex. App. 2015). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15 §§ 219A(A), 219B; Pre-Paid Legal Servs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.