October 15th, 2026
Maryland Limits Architect Noncompetes When Employers Leave the State
Posted in: Business Law Tagged: Katelyn Schuh
Maryland has once again amended its noncompete restrictions and laws. Effective October 1, 2026, House Bill 1016 adds new limits on noncompete and conflict of interest provisions in agreements with licensed architects. Consistent with prior amendments, Maryland has not adopted a blanket prohibition on noncompetes. Instead, the General Assembly continues to enact occupation-specific restrictions and compensation thresholds onto existing law, and House Bill 1016 adds a new protection tied to the employer’s location and workforce.
In 2025, the legislature focused on health care practitioners; this year, architects and the firms that employ them should prepare for these new restrictions. As with the health care amendments, not every architect will be affected. House Bill 1016 does not broadly restrict architect noncompetes. Rather, it renders covered provisions void only where a qualifying Maryland employer relocates its principal place of business, or the majority of its workforce, outside the state.
House Bill 1016 applies to noncompete and conflict of interest provisions in employment agreements with architects entered on or after October 1, 2026. Such a provision is void if each of the following conditions is met: (i) the employee is a licensed architect; (ii) the employer has more than 30 employees; (iii) on the first day of the employee’s employment, a majority of the employer’s employees report to a primary worksite in Maryland or work remotely from Maryland; and (iv) on the enforcement date, the employer no longer has its principal place of business in Maryland and no longer has a majority of its employees working in or remotely from Maryland.
House Bill 1016 defines an employer’s “principal place of business” as the single location from which its officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities. Relocation is measured “on the enforcement date,” which the bill defines as the earliest date on which the employer: (i) files an action or otherwise seeks judicial enforcement of the provision; (ii) initiates arbitration or another formal dispute resolution process; or (iii) demands in writing that the employee comply with the restriction. As a practical matter, a simple cease and desist letter may set the enforcement date, so employers should assess their status under the bill before sending one.
Notably, House Bill 1016 as initially drafted would have applied to employers generally; however, a late amendment narrowed it solely to licensed architects. Although its scope is narrow, its effect may be significant. Because remote and hybrid work remains common, the workforce-majority prong could be triggered not only by a formal relocation of an architecture firm’s headquarters, but also by a gradual shift of employees outside Maryland. Architecture firms with Maryland operations should review their existing agreements, track where their employees are based, and consider the bill’s potential effect before pursuing any merger, acquisition, or relocation.
House Bill 1016 continues Maryland’s trend of restricting noncompetes profession by profession. Although not all architect noncompetes will be void under the law, a noncompete that is not voided by House Bill 1016 must still satisfy Maryland’s existing requirements, including statutory wage thresholds, any other occupation-specific limits, and the common law requirement that the restriction be reasonable in scope and duration. Because the law recently took effect on October 1, 2026, and applies only to agreements entered on or after that date, it remains to be seen how courts will determine whether an employer has relocated and how the law will be enforced. Employers and employees alike should consult counsel when drafting or seeking to enforce restrictive covenants with architects.
