Estimated reading time: 18 minutes

Key Takeaways

• No rehire clause enforceability depends on your state, the clause’s scope, and the facts of your separation, with California and Oregon placing important limits.

• These clauses are often exchanged as part of severance consideration and can permanently close the door to future jobs with the same corporate family.

• California generally bans no‑rehire provisions in dispute‑related settlements (with narrow exceptions), and overly broad bans may violate Section 16600’s professional‑restraint principles.

• Narrower language and clear “carveouts” (time limits, role specificity, affiliate limits) reduce risk and protect your mobility.

• Negotiate before you sign; after signing, your legal options exist but are harder and often require state‑specific analysis.

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• What Is a No Rehire Clause?

• How Courts and Laws Treat No Rehire Clauses — Enforceability Overview

  • California Law and Policy

  • Oregon and Other State Trends

  • Factors Courts Consider

• Impact on Future Employment

  • Concrete Impacts and the Career Fork

  • Can Employer Refuse to Rehire After Settlement?

  • Collateral Impacts

• Common Carveouts and Exceptions

  • What Are “Severance Rehire Clause Carveouts”?

  • Common Carveouts with Model Language

  • How California Exceptions Interact with Carveouts

• How to Negotiate No Rehire Clauses Before Signing

  • Why Early Negotiation Matters

  • Step-by-Step Negotiation Checklist

  • Sample Negotiation Emails

• Legal Options and Challenges After Signing

  • Grounds to Challenge

  • Remedies and Dispute Resolution

  • Practical Steps After Signing

  • California Hypothetical Case Example

• Sample Clauses, Redlines, and Template Language

  • Six Templates with Rationales

  • Crafting a Waiver or Amendment

• Conclusion

• FAQ

Introduction

No rehire clause enforceability refers to whether a contractual no‑rehire or reemployment ban in a severance agreement can be legally upheld by a court or enforced by an employer. This article explains no rehire clause enforceability in plain English and shows how a “rehire ban severance agreement” can affect near‑term job searches and long‑term career mobility.

These provisions frequently appear as part of the exchange in a severance deal: the employer offers money and other benefits, and the employee agrees not to seek future work with the employer or its related entities, among other terms, which functions as part of the consideration in negotiations as several employer advisories explain, including Bricker Graydon’s guidance on no‑rehire provisions.

Below, you’ll learn how these clauses work, when courts enforce them, and what you can do to narrow them before signing. We’ll also address common “severance rehire clause carveouts,” the latest state‑law trends, and what to consider if you’ve already signed and wonder, “can employer refuse to rehire after settlement?”

• What no‑rehire clauses mean, how states like California and Oregon treat them, and how carveouts narrow risk.

• Practical negotiation scripts and your legal options if you need to challenge an overbroad clause after signing.

What Is a No Rehire Clause?

Definition: “A no rehire clause (also called a no‑reemployment clause) is a contractual provision in settlement or severance paperwork that bars a former employee from seeking or obtaining future employment with the same employer or related entities.” Courts and legislatures describe these provisions in severance/settlement contexts, including Oregon’s employment law framework for such terms in ORS 659A.390 and national employer guidance discussing their reach and risks, such as Ogletree Deakins’ analysis of no‑rehire provisions.

Typical sample language employers use includes:

Example 1 (broad): “Employee agrees not to seek, solicit, or accept employment or engagement with Employer or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or parent companies, at any time now or in the future.”

Example 2 (narrow): “Employee agrees not to seek reemployment for the position of Senior Analyst with Employer for a period of 24 months following the Separation Date.”

While no‑rehire clauses focus on one employer (and often its related entities), they are distinct from other restraints. A non‑compete restricts working for competitors or certain industries/areas for a defined period, and a non‑solicit restricts outreach to former colleagues or clients—whereas no‑rehire is employer‑specific and does not prevent you from working elsewhere, a point emphasized in Bricker Graydon’s no‑rehire explainer and discussed broadly in Ogletree’s practice‑restraint overview.

Because these provisions are often part of a severance package, the employer typically offers money or benefits in exchange—a consideration trade that sits at the heart of bargaining and later enforceability, as noted by Bricker Graydon. Thoughtful drafting can make a major difference in no rehire clause enforceability.

How Courts and Laws Treat No Rehire Clauses — Enforceability Overview

Enforcement varies by jurisdiction and context: some states restrict these provisions, others allow them if reasonable and supported by consideration, and courts analyze scope and public policy carefully, with California and Oregon offering particularly significant guideposts, as summarized in RoostedHR’s AB 749 overview and Oregon’s statute.

California Law and Policy

California Assembly Bill 749 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) generally prohibits no‑rehire provisions in settlement agreements related to employment disputes, including claims made through internal complaint processes, reshaping no rehire clause enforceability statewide as explained by RoostedHR.

California recognizes narrow exceptions in which a no‑rehire condition may still stand: when an employer, in good faith, determines the employee engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault; when severance is unrelated to any employment dispute; and when the parties mutually agree with no dispute involved—terms summarized in RoostedHR’s analysis.

Beyond the statute, the Ninth Circuit’s professional‑restraint reasoning underscores that an overly broad no‑rehire provision may operate as a restraint of a substantial character on the lawful practice of a profession under California Business & Professions Code § 16600, a principle discussed in depth by Ogletree Deakins.

This Section 16600 framework—favoring open competition and employee mobility—supports challenges to expansive clauses that effectively block work across a market or corporate family, particularly when “severance rehire clause carveouts” could have narrowed the restraint but were not used, as highlighted by Ogletree.

Oregon and Other State Trends

Oregon addresses restrictive settlement terms—such as no‑rehire—in ORS 659A.390, reflecting a statewide policy to curb specific uses of these provisions and signal closer scrutiny of clauses that burden employees after a dispute.

Massachusetts has also paid regulatory and bar‑association attention to abuse risks in no‑rehire terms, cautioning that such provisions can be overused or deployed to unfairly limit future work opportunities, as noted by the Massachusetts Bar Association commentary.

In many other jurisdictions, absent a statutory prohibition, no‑rehire clauses remain generally enforceable if supported by consideration and drafted reasonably, though courts may scrutinize overbreadth, unconscionability, or a lack of connection to legitimate business interests, a perspective reflected in Bricker Graydon’s overview for employers.

Factors Courts Consider

Scope and breadth: A clause limited to the single employer (e.g., “no application to Acme Inc.”) is more defensible than one sweeping in all affiliates, subsidiaries, and parents indefinitely, and courts pay attention to language that restrains employment opportunities across a corporate family, as discussed by Ogletree.

Relationship to the settlement: Judges consider whether the no‑rehire term is reasonably related to the employer’s legitimate interests, such as preventing re‑litigation or avoiding workplace disruption and reputational conflict tied to the prior dispute, a relevance analysis reflected in Ogletree’s discussion.

Geographic/industry impact: If a clause effectively bars a worker from a meaningful portion of the regional market or profession, it may function like an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 16600 principles, a risk emphasized in Ogletree’s analysis.

Good faith misconduct determination: In California, a documented, good faith finding of sexual harassment or assault is an explicit exception that can bolster enforceability in otherwise restricted settings, as summarized by RoostedHR.

Consideration: Courts assess whether the employee received adequate consideration—typically severance pay or benefits—in exchange for the no‑rehire promise, a key contract principle highlighted in Bricker Graydon’s resource on no‑rehire clauses.

Unconscionability & procedural fairness: Judges look for unfair surprise or coercive circumstances (procedural unconscionability) and overly harsh terms (substantive unconscionability), applying familiar contract doctrines to determine if the language should stand, a review often implicated in disputes addressed by employer‑side analyses like Bricker Graydon.

Narrower language plus fair consideration makes a clause more defensible and less harmful to your career.

Impact on Future Employment

Concrete Impacts and the Career Fork

A no‑rehire term can impose a permanent bar or a time‑limited ban, creating an immediate “career fork”: once you sign, paths that include returning to that corporate family may be closed for years—or forever—depending on terms and jurisdictional limits, an outcome courts have viewed skeptically when clauses function like broad professional restraints, as discussed by Ogletree.

In specialized industries with only a handful of dominant employers in a region, a sweeping ban across parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates can erase multiple realistic job options with a single signature, a structural impact that also features in state‑law debates like MassBar’s discussion of potential abuse.

Can Employer Refuse to Rehire After Settlement?

Even when a clause is restricted or unenforceable, an employer generally retains discretion not to rehire a former worker; the clause usually prevents the employee from applying or accepting, not the employer from saying no, a point noted in employer guidance like Bricker Graydon’s no‑rehire explainer and California‑specific analysis in CDF’s overview of California’s prohibition and its practical implications.

If circumstances change, an employer can waive the prior no‑rehire condition in writing (e.g., an offer letter that expressly waives the term), which both clarifies mutual intent and protects the parties from later disputes about the scope of any reemployment, a documented‑waiver practice reflected in Bricker Graydon’s guidance.

Collateral Impacts

• Professional stigma and references: If a clause results in permanent separation and no reentry, some managers may be reluctant to provide references—especially in a small industry where everyone knows the players.

• Reduced leverage: When you cannot leverage an opening at your former employer, you lose a valuable comparison point in future salary negotiations.

• Indirect market limits: In niche sectors, being barred from three major affiliates could effectively block most local opportunities, making relocation or career pivots more likely.

These impacts often interact with other severance terms (e.g., confidentiality, non‑disparagement), so a holistic review of your agreement is wise; for a line‑by‑line approach to related severance terms, see the step‑through analysis in this severance agreement review guide.

Common Carveouts and Exceptions

What Are “Severance Rehire Clause Carveouts”?

“Severance rehire clause carveouts” are specific language that narrows or exempts circumstances under which rehire is permitted. By focusing on role, time, affiliates, qualifications, or reconsideration steps, carveouts reduce risk while addressing an employer’s legitimate concerns, a best‑practice approach that can improve no rehire clause enforceability and fairness.

Common Carveouts with Model Language

• Position‑specific carveout: “Employee agrees not to seek reemployment for the position of [Exact Title] for 18 months; employee may apply for other roles within the Employer.” Effect: Limits the restriction to the prior role only.

• Temporal carveout: “No rehire for 24 months following Separation Date.” Effect: Converts a permanent ban into a time‑limited pause, more likely to be upheld as reasonable.

• Affiliate limitation: “This restriction applies only to [Direct Employer Legal Name], not to any affiliate, subsidiary, or parent.” Effect: Cuts out the corporate family sweep.

• Performance/credential carveout: “Employee may reapply if s/he completes [Training/Certification] or meets [Performance Metric].” Effect: Links reemployment to objective improvement.

• Good‑faith reconsideration: “Upon written request, Employer will reconsider rehire within 30 days and provide a written response.” Effect: Adds a process without guaranteeing a job.

• Mutual agreement: “The parties may mutually agree to rehire despite this clause, confirmed in a signed writing.” Effect: Provides flexibility if interests change.

These carveouts also work alongside other severance terms (e.g., non‑disparagement, references), and a comprehensive negotiating strategy can align all provisions; for a primer on balancing these related terms, see this guide on negotiating non‑disparagement and related severance provisions.

How California Exceptions Interact with Carveouts

In California, AB 749’s baseline rule is that no‑rehire provisions are not allowed in dispute‑related settlements, so carveouts are less relevant unless an exception applies, such as a good faith determination of sexual harassment or assault, non‑dispute severances, or mutual agreements, each summarized in RoostedHR’s overview.

When an exception applies in California or where no statutory ban exists, narrower drafting (time limits, role limits, affiliate exclusions) tends to be more defensible than blanket corporate‑family bans, consistent with the open‑competition and employee‑mobility policy reflected in the Section 16600 analysis discussed by Ogletree.

How to Negotiate No Rehire Clauses Before Signing

Why Early Negotiation Matters

Negotiate before you sign — once you sign, your options shrink substantially.

Post‑signature changes are hard to obtain and may require a waiver or formal amendment, which means your strongest leverage is during drafting and before acceptance; this timing point is echoed across employer and HR advisories and aligns with the need to analyze state‑specific rules (e.g., California’s AB 749 limits), as in RoostedHR and the consideration‑based approach summarized by Bricker Graydon.

In parallel, consider how the clause interacts with other severance terms (e.g., references, confidentiality); a comprehensive checklist approach is outlined in this severance agreement review guide.

Step-by-Step Negotiation Checklist

• Step 1: Assess leverage. Indicators include strong potential claims, the employer’s desire to avoid litigation, timing pressure to close, or a need for your cooperation in transitions—leverage that affects consideration and will shape outcomes, as recognized in employer‑side summaries like Bricker Graydon’s discussion of consideration.

• Step 2: Request the business rationale. Script: “Can you explain why a no‑rehire provision is necessary in this settlement?” This flushes out reflexive clauses not tied to a legit interest (e.g., avoiding re‑litigation) and invites narrower drafting consistent with fair practice emphasized in Ogletree’s restraint analysis.

• Step 3: Propose alternatives. Replacement language ideas:

  • Narrow A (role only): “Employee agrees not to seek reemployment for the role of [Exact Title] but may apply for other roles.”

  • Narrow B (time limit): “No rehire with Employer for 24 months following Separation Date.”

  • Narrow C (affiliate carveout): “Applies only to Employer entity [legal name], not to affiliates.”

  • Alternative D (waiver clause): “Employer may waive this restriction in its sole discretion and any waiver must be in writing.”

• Step 4: Propose consideration tradeoffs. If any residual restriction remains, ask for more severance, extended COBRA, a neutral/positive reference, or continued benefits—classic consideration swaps consistent with finance‑for‑promise trade described by Bricker Graydon and examined alongside California’s limits in RoostedHR.

• Step 5: Insist on written documentation. Any waiver or change must be in writing and signed; this protects both sides and avoids later disputes over who said what, a practice highlighted in employer resources like Bricker Graydon.

• Step 6: Use counsel. Ask the employer to share its standard clause and confirm you will have counsel propose acceptable replacement terms; for broader context on challenging arbitration or other boilerplate, see this guide to arbitration agreement enforceability.

Sample Negotiation Emails

• Strong leverage: “Given the potential claims and our desire to close amicably, please remove the no‑rehire language or limit it to my former role for 12 months and to the direct employing entity only. In exchange, I’ll sign the release by Friday.”

• Limited leverage: “I’m willing to accept a time‑limited restriction of 12 months with [Employer Entity Only], provided you exclude affiliates/subsidiaries and agree to a neutral reference.”

• California/Oregon: “My understanding is that California’s AB 749 restricts no‑rehire provisions in dispute settlements and Oregon law imposes limits in separation settlements; please delete the clause, or confirm a narrow, time‑limited version that complies with state law.” See RoostedHR on California’s rule and Oregon’s ORS 659A.390 for statutory guardrails.

Negotiating these terms is as important as any other severance provision and should be part of your overall planning (including unemployment and tax considerations), which you can explore further in this guide to severance and unemployment benefits and this overview of severance tax implications.

Legal Options and Challenges After Signing

If you already signed, changing the terms is harder—but not impossible. Potential challenge theories include statutory bans, professional‑restraint doctrine, unconscionability, lack of consideration, and waiver/estoppel based on employer conduct, which require state‑specific analysis consistent with California’s AB 749 overview, Section 16600 practice‑restraint analysis by Ogletree, and the consideration focus highlighted by Bricker Graydon.

Grounds to Challenge

• Statutory public policy violation: In California, AB 749 bars no‑rehire terms in dispute‑related settlements, so a clause may be void unless an exception applies, as summarized by RoostedHR.

• Professional restraint / § 16600: Overly broad provisions that restrain a substantial character of your profession or market participation may violate Section 16600’s core policy, as explained in Ogletree’s analysis.

• Unconscionability: Procedural (e.g., rushed signing, no counsel, unequal bargaining power) and substantive (e.g., permanent, corporate‑family ban with minimal consideration) unconscionability can support non‑enforcement, a doctrine often examined in employer resources like Bricker Graydon.

• Lack of consideration: If the severance/payment was inadequate or not tied to the restriction, the clause can be attacked as unsupported by consideration, a basic contract concept highlighted in Bricker Graydon’s overview.

• Waiver or estoppel: If an employer later indicates it will ignore or waive the term (e.g., by issuing an offer letter despite the clause), you may assert waiver/estoppel; always secure a written waiver, a best practice noted by Bricker Graydon.

Remedies and Dispute Resolution

• Negotiation/modification: The fastest and least expensive approach is to ask the employer to amend or waive the term, especially if business needs changed; a method also consistent with practical realities discussed in employer guidance like Bricker Graydon.

• Mediation: A neutral can help restructure terms (e.g., add time limit, remove affiliates) and wrap into a short amendment, a low‑conflict path that preserves relationships; for context on dispute‑resolution choices versus litigation, review arbitration and ADR implications.

• Arbitration: Many settlements include arbitration clauses; review your agreement and plan for ADR timelines and rules, as explored in this arbitration enforceability guide.

• Litigation: Court challenges may be warranted for clear statutory violations or broad public‑policy conflicts; expect a longer timeline and higher cost, but a strong policy footing in places like California per RoostedHR’s AB 749 summary.

If the employer violates the settlement in other ways while enforcing a no‑rehire term (e.g., failing to pay severance), you may need to enforce your settlement agreement or address post‑settlement retaliation issues in tandem.

Practical Steps After Signing

• Step 1: Preserve documents. Keep the original settlement, drafts, emails, and any communications about rehire or waiver; this record supports statutory, restraint, or waiver/estoppel arguments discussed in Ogletree and RoostedHR.

• Step 2: Consult a state‑licensed employment attorney. State law drives outcomes; California and Oregon are instructive, as outlined by RoostedHR and ORS 659A.390, with consideration principles summarized in Bricker Graydon.

• Step 3: Try negotiation/waiver first. Sample: “Based on business needs and my qualifications, will you waive the no‑rehire clause for [Role] at [Entity]? I am attaching my updated resume and references. Please confirm in writing.”

• Step 4: If negotiation fails, evaluate ADR or litigation. Check any arbitration clause and local filing rules; see this arbitration rights guide for practical implications.

If you need fast guidance on whether your broader situation could merit counsel, you can review general hiring considerations in this overview of free employment‑law consultations.

California Hypothetical Case Example

A biotech lab associate signs a severance agreement after filing internal complaints. The clause states she “will never seek or accept employment with Employer or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate, anywhere in California.” When she later applies to an unrelated division under the parent company, she’s rejected based on the clause. She challenges the provision: because it’s tied to a dispute settlement, AB 749 bars the term absent an exception, and even beyond AB 749, the breadth likely violates Section 16600 as an unlawful professional restraint—arguments aligned with California’s AB 749 regime and the Section 16600 practice‑restraint reasoning.

Sample Clauses, Redlines, and Template Language

Six Templates with Rationales

• Template A (delete entirely): [DELETE: “Employee shall never seek or accept employment with Employer or any affiliate.”] [REPLACEMENT: “No no‑rehire provision applies.”] Rationale: Eliminates restraint and legal risk while simplifying compliance.

• Template B (position‑specific): “Employee agrees not to seek or accept reemployment for the position of [Exact Title] for 12 months; employee may apply for other roles.” Rationale: Targets the specific friction point, not a whole company.

• Template C (24‑month limit): “No rehire with [Employer Entity] for 24 months following Separation Date.” Rationale: Converts permanent bans into reasonable time limits.

• Template D (affiliate limitation): “This provision applies only to [Employer Entity Legal Name] and does not extend to any affiliate, subsidiary, or parent.” Rationale: Avoids sweeping corporate‑family restraints.

• Template E (waiver and written process): “Employer may waive this provision in its sole discretion; any waiver must be in writing, signed by an authorized representative.” Rationale: Creates a clear path to rehire if interests change.

• Template F (neutral reference; good‑faith review): “Employer will provide a neutral reference confirming dates and position, and after 12 months will conduct a good‑faith review of any rehire request.” Rationale: Preserves future options and mitigates stigma.

When tailoring any of the above, ensure consistency with other severance terms (e.g., references, non‑disparagement) and confirm state‑law compliance; for additional context on harmonizing severance provisions, review this guide to non‑disparagement clauses and carveouts.

Crafting a Waiver or Amendment

Use a simple, signed writing: “Employer waives the no‑rehire restriction with respect to [Name] on [Date]; this waiver is effective only if in writing and signed by an authorized signatory.” Written waivers (e.g., in an offer letter) prevent confusion and reduce future disputes, a best practice consistent with employer guidance like Bricker Graydon and with California‑specific practice notes summarized by CDF.

Conclusion

1. Jurisdiction is critical: California and Oregon offer protections that limit or condition enforcement.

2. Negotiate pre‑signature: Narrow the clause (role, time, affiliates) or seek additional consideration.

3. Post‑signature options exist but are harder: consult counsel about “reemployment ban legal options,” prioritize negotiation/mediation, and weigh litigation only where statutes and public policy clearly support a challenge.

Need help now? Get a free and instant case evaluation by US Employment Lawyers. See if your case qualifies within 30-seconds at https://usemploymentlawyers.com.

FAQ

Can an employer refuse to rehire after settlement?

Yes. Even apart from a clause, hiring is typically discretionary for the employer; a no‑rehire provision mainly prohibits the employee from applying or accepting, and any change should be confirmed by a written waiver, a practice described by employer guidance such as Bricker Graydon. For broader context, see Impact on Future Employment on “rehire ban severance agreement” effects.

Are no‑rehire clauses enforceable in California?

Generally no, if tied to an employment‑dispute settlement, because AB 749 bars such terms with narrow exceptions (good‑faith determinations of sexual harassment/assault, non‑dispute severances, mutual agreements), as summarized by RoostedHR. Overbroad restrictions may also face professional‑restraint challenges under Section 16600; see California Law and Policy for details on “no rehire clause enforceability” and “reemployment ban legal options.”

What are my legal options if I already signed?

Consider negotiation or a written waiver first, then mediation or arbitration if your agreement requires it, and litigation where statutes or public policy support a challenge; grounds include AB 749, Section 16600 restraints, unconscionability, lack of consideration, or waiver/estoppel, as discussed in Legal Options and Challenges After Signing. These are core “reemployment ban legal options.”

How do carveouts affect my ability to reapply?

Carveouts narrow the restriction and preserve options. Examples include position‑specific limits, time limits, affiliate exclusions, performance‑based exceptions, and reconsideration timelines—collectively called “severance rehire clause carveouts.” See Common Carveouts and Exceptions for model language and how these interact with state‑law rules.

Can a no‑rehire clause stop me from working in my field generally?

No‑rehire terms are employer‑specific, not general non‑competes, but very broad versions that sweep an entire corporate family or market may be attacked as unlawful restraints on practicing your profession under Section 16600 principles, as discussed in Ogletree’s analysis. See Factors Courts Consider for how breadth shapes enforceability.