Florida CHOICE Act Expands Non-Compete & Garden Leave Terms

Florida just did what Florida does best: it turned the thermostat upthis time on restrictive covenants. If you thought your company’s non-compete policy was already “pretty serious,” the Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act is here to say, “Hold my iced cafecito.”

The CHOICE Act creates a new, employer-friendly framework for longer non-compete periods and paid garden leave arrangementswith streamlined enforcement that can feel less like a legal tug-of-war and more like a legal trap door. But it’s not a free-for-all: the law applies mainly to higher-earning workers (“covered employees”), includes technical notice requirements, and comes with drafting landmines for anyone who loves copying old contract templates like they’re family recipes.

Note: This article is informational and written for a general audience. It’s not legal advice. (Because if it were, it would cost more and come with a free pen.)

What Is the Florida CHOICE Act (and Why Are Employers Talking About It)?

The Florida CHOICE Act is a Florida statute designed to encourage investment, training, and information sharing by making certain restrictive employment agreements more predictable and easier to enforce. In plain English: Florida lawmakers decided that existing tools like NDAs, fixed-term contracts, and nonsolicitation clauses weren’t always enough, and that employers wanted clearer, stronger enforcement options.

The law establishes two special categories of agreements:

• Covered Garden Leave Agreements (paid notice periodspotentially long ones)
• Covered Noncompete Agreements (post-employment restrictionsalso potentially long ones)

The headline-grabber is the duration: up to four years for both typesfar beyond what many people associate with “normal” employee non-competes.

Quick Definitions (So We Don’t Trip Over the Vocabulary)

Garden Leave (Florida CHOICE Act version)

A covered garden leave agreement is basically a paid runway: the employee agrees not to resign before a specified termination date, and the employer agrees to keep paying salary and benefits during a “notice period.” After the first 90 days, the employee generally doesn’t have to perform services, and can do nonwork activities freely. Working for a new employer during garden leave is only allowed with the current employer’s permission.

Non-Compete (Florida CHOICE Act version)

A covered noncompete agreement restricts the employee after termination from taking a role where they’d provide similar services (based on the last three years) or would likely use the employer’s confidential information or customer relationshipswithin a defined geographic area.

Who Does the CHOICE Act Apply To? Meet the “Covered Employee.”

This is the part everyone should read twiceslowlyand then once more for the people in the back who still think “covered employee” means “anyone with a W-2.”

Under the CHOICE Act, a “covered employee” is an employee or independent contractor who earns (or is reasonably expected to earn) a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county. The county is typically where the employer’s principal place of business is located; if the employer’s principal place of business isn’t in Florida, the county is where the employee resides.

Translation: this law is aimed at higher-compensated workersoften executives, senior sales leaders, key engineers, strategy roles, and others with meaningful access to confidential information, pricing, playbooks, or high-value relationships.

Important carve-out: the law excludes health care practitioners (as defined elsewhere in Florida law), even if they’re high earners. So if you’re trying to slap a CHOICE Act four-year restriction on a physician, you may be building a contract castle on a sandbar.

Also, “salary” under the CHOICE Act isn’t just “cash base pay.” It’s defined broadly as base compensation calculated on an annualized basis, and it can include the fair market value of certain non-cash benefitswhile excluding items like healthcare benefits, severance, retirement benefits, expense reimbursements, and more. The details matter because eligibility hinges on this math.

Covered Garden Leave Agreements: Paid Notice, Bigger Leverage

If non-competes are the “don’t do that” part of employment law, garden leave is the “you can do that… later” part. Under the CHOICE Act, a covered garden leave agreement can provide up to four years of advance notice before terminationyes, yearswhere the employee remains employed and receives the same salary and benefits they received in the last month before the notice period starts.

Required building blocks (don’t skip these)

To get the CHOICE Act’s protections, the agreement must hit specific statutory requirements, including:

• Written advice of the right to seek counsel before signing.
• Advance notice timing: the proposed agreement must be provided at least 7 days before an offer expires (for new hires) or before an offer to enter the agreement expires (for current workers).
• Written acknowledgment that the employee has received confidential information or customer relationships.
• Work and lifestyle rules during the notice period:
  • After the first 90 days, the employee doesn’t have to provide services.
  • The employee can engage in nonwork activities at any time, including during normal business hours.
  • The employee can work for another employer only with permission from the current employer.
  • The employer can reduce the notice period, but must give at least 30 days’ advance written notice.

Enforcement: injunctions with a fast lane

Here’s where the CHOICE Act starts to feel like a cheat code for employers: if the employer seeks enforcement, courts are directed to issue preliminary injunctions that can stop the covered employee from working for others during the garden leave notice periodand can also enjoin the would-be new employer from engaging the employee.

The employee (or the new employer) can try to modify or dissolve the injunction, but the burden is high: it generally requires clear and convincing evidence based on nonconfidential information. In other words, the law is engineered for speed and predictability, not for leisurely courtroom debates.

“Gross misconduct” and pay reduction

The CHOICE Act also allows an employer to reduce salary or benefits (or take other action) during the notice period if the employee engages in gross misconduct against the employerwithout that reduction automatically being treated as the employer breaching the agreement. That’s a big drafting and litigation detail: it can shape leverage in high-stakes exits where trust is already gone.

Example: the “Paid but parked” executive exit

Imagine a senior revenue leader who qualifies as a covered employee. The company anticipates a competitive exit risk, so it negotiates a garden leave agreement: if either side gives notice, there’s a 12-month notice period. The employee keeps full salary and benefits, but after 90 days they’re effectively benchedno client calls, no pricing meetings, no “quick question” pings. If they try to jump to a competitor in month two, the employer has a clearer path to injunctive relief under CHOICE Act procedures.

It’s not cheap for the company. But that’s the point: garden leave is the employer paying for time, separation, and protectionlike buying a very expensive pause button.

Covered Noncompete Agreements: Longer Terms, Narrower Triggers

A covered noncompete agreement under the CHOICE Act can last up to four years and must define a geographic area. The agreement restricts the covered employee from taking a role where they would:

• Provide services similar to what they provided in the three years preceding the noncompete period, or
• Be reasonably likely to use the employer’s confidential information or customer relationships.

That “three years look-back” is an important practical boundary: it ties restrictions to what the employee actually did, not a hypothetical “you might do something someday” job description. But “similar services” can still be argued broadly in litigation, so precise role definitions and evidence trails matter.

Notice and counsel requirements (again)

Just like garden leave agreements, covered noncompetes require:

• Written notice of the right to seek counsel,
• Providing the proposed agreement at least 7 days before an offer expires, and
• A written acknowledgment that the employee will receive confidential information or customer relationships.

Coordination with garden leave: no double-counting time

If the employee is also on covered garden leave, the CHOICE Act requires that the noncompete period be reduced day-for-day by any nonworking portion of the notice period. That’s Florida’s way of saying: “You don’t get to bench someone for a year and then add a full four-year noncompete on top like a legal layer cake.”

Enforcement: more mandatory injunction language

As with garden leave, the CHOICE Act provides that courts must issue preliminary injunctions when enforcement is soughtboth against the employee and, in many cases, against the new employer that tries to engage them during the noncompete period. The ability to modify or dissolve the injunction again typically requires clear and convincing evidence and specific showings (for example, that the work won’t be similar, or that the new business isn’t engaged in similar activity in the defined geographic area).

Example: the “It’s not your whole career, just this market” noncompete

Suppose a covered employee managed strategic accounts in Florida and developed deep customer relationships. A covered noncompete might restrict them for 18 months within a defined Florida region from taking a role where they’d service the same account types or use confidential pricing strategy. If the employee tries to join a direct competitor in the same region doing essentially the same work, the employer has a stronger statutory path to quick injunctive relief.

But if the employee instead takes a role outside the geographic area or in a meaningfully different function (say, moving from sales leadership to internal operations at a company not competing in that market), the “similar services” and “similar business activity” questions become centraland that’s where careful drafting and factual proof matter.

How the CHOICE Act Changes the Florida Non-Compete Conversation

Florida already had a well-known non-compete framework under Fla. Stat. § 542.335, which enforces reasonable restrictive covenants supported by a legitimate business interest (like trade secrets, confidential information, substantial customer relationships, goodwill, or specialized training). Under that older statute, courts apply rebuttable presumptions on durationsuch as presuming that restraints of 6 months or less against former employees are reasonable, while restraints of more than 2 years are presumed unreasonable in many employee contexts.

The CHOICE Act doesn’t erase § 542.335. Instead, it creates a specialized lane for certain high-earning covered employees and specific agreement structures, paired with more directive enforcement language. Think of it this way:

• Traditional Florida restrictive covenants (§ 542.335): broad applicability, reasonableness balancing, presumptions by duration, and familiar litigation patterns.
• CHOICE Act restrictive covenants: narrower eligibility, more technical prerequisites, but potentially longer terms and a more predictable enforcement posture.

For employers, that can mean stronger leverageespecially when the goal is to slow down a competitor-hopping executive long enough for confidential strategy and customer relationships to cool off. For employees, it means negotiations over restrictive covenants may feel less like “Will this hold up?” and more like “How do I limit what I’m signing?”

Drafting & Compliance Checklist for Employers

If you’re an employer (or in-house counsel, or HR, or the person who just inherited “contracts” because you once used Adobe Sign successfully), here’s how to avoid self-inflicted wounds.

1) Confirm the employee is actually “covered”

Because the CHOICE Act threshold depends on county wage data and a statutory “salary” definition, do the math carefully. Document your basis for “reasonably expected to earn” salary if the agreement is signed before compensation is fully realized.

2) Nail the timing: the 7-day rule

Provide the proposed agreement at least 7 days before an offer (or offer-to-enter) expires. Build this into your onboarding timeline so you’re not sending a noncompete at 11:59 p.m. the night before a start date and hoping nobody notices. Courts often notice. Employees always notice.

3) Include the “right to seek counsel” language in writing

This is not the place for vague “You may consult anyone you like” fluff. Be direct: advise the employee, in writing, of the right to seek counsel before execution.

4) Get written acknowledgments about confidential info/customer relationships

The CHOICE Act relies heavily on written acknowledgments. Don’t treat this as boilerplate. Define what “confidential information” and “customer relationships” mean in your business, and make sure the role actually touches them.

5) Define scope like you want to win an argument later

For noncompetes, define the geographic area with care. For “similar services,” build role descriptions and performance documentation that clarify what the employee actually did. Ambiguity is a party favor you’ll be serving to the other side in litigation.

6) Decide whether garden leave is worth the cost

Garden leave can be powerfulbut it’s also expensive. Paying someone to not work is a strategic move, not a vibe. Use it when the risk is real: key customer transitions, sensitive product roadmaps, pricing models, or executive departures that could trigger a competitive chain reaction.

7) Coordinate CHOICE Act agreements with your broader restrictive covenant strategy

You may still use traditional § 542.335 agreements for employees who aren’t covered, for nonsolicitation clauses, NDAs, and other tools. Make sure your contract ecosystem is consistentespecially around definitions, remedies, and severability.

What Employees Should Watch (and Negotiate)

If you’re a high-earning employee in Floridaor remote but tied to Florida under the statutethis law changes the stakes. Here’s how to protect yourself without turning every offer into a courtroom drama.

1) Ask whether you’re a “covered employee” (and how the company calculated it)

Because the threshold is tied to county wage data, don’t assume. Ask. And if you’re near the line, clarify what counts toward “salary” and what doesn’t.

2) Narrow “similar services”

Push for clear role-based language. If your job spans five functions, a competitor could argue your next role overlaps at least one of them. Precision helps everyoneespecially future-you.

3) Make the geographic area realistic

Noncompetes tied to a reasonable market footprint are easier to live with than “anywhere the internet exists.” Define geography in a way that reflects where you actually work and where the company truly competes.

4) If there’s garden leave, negotiate the rules of the bench

Garden leave isn’t a vacation; it’s more like being paid to stay out of trouble. If you’re agreeing to it, negotiate practical points: permission to teach, consult, take board roles, or work for non-competitive employers. Put approvals in writing. Vibes are not enforceable; clauses are.

5) Clarify what happens if the relationship ends badly

The CHOICE Act includes provisions around gross misconduct and potential pay/benefit reductions. Make sure you understand how “misconduct” is defined or referenced, and whether company policies are incorporated by reference.

Real-World Business Impacts: Why This Law Matters Beyond Legal Departments

Restrictive covenants aren’t just legal paperworkthey shape how talent moves, how companies plan transitions, and how competitors recruit. Expect the CHOICE Act to influence:

• Executive hiring negotiations: More back-and-forth on exit restrictions, buyouts, and garden leave budgets.
• Recruiting strategy: Competitors may hesitate to hire covered employees without careful role and geography analysis to avoid injunction risk.
• Deal-making and investment: Companies may use CHOICE Act agreements to reassure investors that key talent and confidential strategy won’t walk out the door overnight.
• Litigation posture: The law’s injunction mechanics can shift leverage early in disputesoften when the employee’s new job is just starting.

And zooming out: while the federal government flirted with major nationwide changes to noncompete rules in recent years, noncompete enforcement has largely remained a state-by-state story. Florida is telling that story with a megaphone.

FAQ: The Questions People Actually Ask (Not the Ones Lawyers Pretend They Get)

Does the CHOICE Act ban noncompetes?

No. It expands enforceability options for certain agreements with covered employees, and lays out specific rules for covered garden leave and covered noncompete agreements.

Does it apply to everyone in Florida?

No. It applies to “covered employees” who exceed a salary threshold tied to county wage data, and it excludes health care practitioners.

Can I still use a traditional Florida noncompete?

Yes. Florida’s long-standing restrictive covenant statute (Fla. Stat. § 542.335) still applies broadly and covers many agreements outside CHOICE Act structures, including nonsolicitation and other restrictive covenants.

Is “four years” automatic?

No. The statute allows agreements up to four years if requirements are met, but parties can agree to shorter periodsand courts will still scrutinize whether statutory prerequisites were satisfied.

Experiences From the Real World: What CHOICE Act Implementation Feels Like (500+ Words)

Once the CHOICE Act hit the scene, the first “experience” most companies had wasn’t a lawsuitit was a shared inbox full of messages that all boiled down to: “Wait… do our templates do this?”

Experience #1: HR discovers time is a legal requirement.
Many employers learned quickly that the CHOICE Act isn’t just about longer restrictions; it’s also about process. The 7-day advance delivery rule for proposed agreements sounds simple until you realize your recruiting workflow has been, historically, powered by caffeine and optimism. Companies that used to send restrictive covenants with the final offer packet suddenly started adjusting timelines: earlier disclosures, cleaner offer expiration dates, and fewer last-minute “Just sign this too” attachments. The practical lesson: under the CHOICE Act, the calendar matters almost as much as the contract language.

Experience #2: Executives negotiate garden leave like it’s severance’s richer cousin.
Higher-earning candidates (the ones most likely to qualify as covered employees) often treat garden leave as a financial and career planning tool. In negotiations, you see common requests: shorten the notice period, expand permitted activities during the bench, or pre-approve certain categories of future employment (like working for non-competitive portfolio companies). Some candidates ask for a “permission not unreasonably withheld” standardbecause nobody wants their next step blocked by a manager who’s salty and armed with a red pen. The emotional truth: garden leave feels safer when both sides build realistic off-ramps, not just legal barricades.

Experience #3: Competitors get pickierand more creativeabout roles.
Recruiters and hiring managers have started getting more granular when targeting Florida-based senior talent. Instead of hiring a covered employee into a mirror-image role (“Come do the exact same thing, but in our logo”), companies sometimes reshape the job: different territory, different function, different product line, different reporting structure. That’s not just corporate theaterit’s risk management. If the CHOICE Act increases the chance of fast injunctions, then “role design” becomes part of the litigation avoidance strategy.

Experience #4: Remote work makes “primary place of work” a dinner-table debate.
With hybrid and remote work, people ask: “If I live in Florida but travel for work, what’s my primary place of work?” Or: “If the company is based elsewhere but I work mostly in Florida, does Florida law control?” Real-life experience here often looks like documentation clean-up: employers tracking where work is performed, employees clarifying where they’re assigned, and both sides being more careful with contract choice-of-law clauses. The CHOICE Act pushes everyone to be clearerbecause ambiguity is the kind of thing that becomes Exhibit A.

Experience #5: The first dispute is rarely about ‘competition’it’s about ‘similar services.’
When conflicts arise, they often hinge on job similarity. Employees may argue their new role is different enoughdifferent customer set, different industry niche, different responsibilities. Employers may argue the opposite: that the employee’s core know-how and customer leverage make the move competitively dangerous even if the job title changed. The lived experience in these disputes is that words in a contract meet facts in a calendar: what the employee actually did over the last three years, and what they’re actually going to do next Monday.

Ultimately, the CHOICE Act experiencefor employers and employees alikeis a shift from “Will this be enforceable?” to “How do we design this relationship so enforcement is less likely to be needed?” Done well, the law encourages clearer expectations, cleaner exits, and fewer surprise sprint-to-court moments. Done poorly, it encourages expensive standoffs, frozen careers, and a lot of very tense Slack messages.

Conclusion: Florida’s New Restrictive Covenant Reality

The Florida CHOICE Act doesn’t mean every worker in Florida is suddenly locked into a four-year non-compete. What it does mean is that for high-earning covered employees, Florida created a more explicit playbook for longer noncompete periods and garden leave structuresand paired that playbook with enforcement mechanisms that can move quickly.

If you’re an employer, the opportunity is real: better protection for sensitive information and key relationshipsif you follow the statute’s technical requirements and draft with precision. If you’re an employee, the strategy is equally real: understand whether you’re covered, negotiate scope and geography, and don’t treat “standard contract language” like it’s harmless background music.

In short: Florida didn’t ban non-competes. It upgraded themselectively, strategically, and with enough fine print to keep contract lawyers gainfully employed for the foreseeable future. (You’re welcome, law school loans.)