Non-compete, confidentiality, and employment agreements in the psychedelic industry

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Psychedelic law changes quickly — verify current status before relying on this page.

For facilitators, clinicians, operators, and other workers entering or leaving employment in Oregon’s licensed psilocybin industry who want to understand what non-compete clauses, confidentiality agreements, and employment contracts can and cannot require of them.

The short answer

Employment agreements in the psychedelic industry raise the same legal issues as employment agreements in any emerging industry — with a few features specific to the regulatory context. Non-compete clauses are heavily restricted under Oregon law enacted in 2022, and most psychedelic industry workers will find that clauses purporting to restrict their ability to work for competitors or start their own practices are unenforceable. Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions are broader and generally enforceable, but they cannot reach client records protected under ORS 475A.450 or require a worker to conceal regulatory violations. Facilitator agreements between service centers and facilitators — which may be employment agreements or independent contractor agreements — carry specific regulatory implications for records custody, liability, and the facilitator’s own licensing obligations. Understanding what your agreement says before you sign is considerably easier than understanding it after a dispute has arisen.

Oregon non-compete law

Oregon’s non-compete statute (ORS 653.295, significantly amended effective January 1, 2022) is among the most restrictive in the country. A non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee is void and unenforceable unless all of the following conditions are met at the time the agreement is signed: the employer informs the employee in a written job offer at least two weeks before the start of employment, or the agreement is entered into upon a bona fide advancement; the employee is exempt from Oregon minimum wage and overtime requirements (meaning a salaried exempt employee); the employer has a protectable interest — defined as trade secrets or other confidential information in which the employer has a substantial investment; and the employee’s annual gross salary and commission exceeds a specified threshold (adjusted annually — $115,717 for 2025).

For most facilitators and psychedelic industry workers, these conditions will not be met. A facilitator working at a service center as an independent contractor is not an employee at all, so ORS 653.295 applies differently. A facilitator working as a salaried employee whose compensation is at or below the threshold — which covers most early-career employees in a new industry — is not subject to an enforceable non-compete. A worker who was not given the required advance written notice before starting cannot be bound by a non-compete entered at or after hire.

Even when all conditions are met, Oregon’s non-compete law limits the duration to 12 months. A clause purporting to restrict competition for two or three years is void as to the excess period.

The practical reality for most psychedelic industry workers is that non-compete clauses in their agreements are likely unenforceable under ORS 653.295. An employee who is told they cannot work for a competing service center or start their own practice should have that clause reviewed by an employment attorney before assuming it is binding.

Non-solicitation agreements

Non-solicitation clauses — provisions that restrict a departing worker from soliciting the employer’s clients or employees after leaving — are governed separately from non-competes and are generally more enforceable in Oregon. A non-solicitation clause prohibiting a former facilitator from directly contacting clients they served at a service center and inviting those clients to follow them to a new practice is the type of restriction Oregon courts have historically been willing to enforce, provided it is reasonable in scope and duration.

The interaction between non-solicitation clauses and the confidentiality of psilocybin client records creates a specific tension. Client records — including client identities — are protected under ORS 475A.450. A former facilitator who possesses client contact information from their service center engagement holds information that is subject to both the confidentiality protections of ORS 475A.450 and any contractual non-solicitation obligations. Using that information to solicit former clients would simultaneously violate the contractual clause and the statutory confidentiality obligation. A facilitator who leaves a service center and wants to inform former clients of their new practice should consult an attorney before reaching out.

Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions

Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions in psychedelic industry employment agreements typically cover: the service center’s proprietary business information (client lists, pricing, vendor relationships, training materials, operational procedures); trade secrets; and internal communications. These provisions are generally enforceable under Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (ORS 646.461 et seq.) where the information meets the definition of a trade secret and the employer has taken reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy.

What confidentiality provisions cannot do is override ORS 475A.450’s client confidentiality protections. A service center cannot contractually require a facilitator to handle client records in a way that conflicts with ORS 475A.450’s requirements — including by having the facilitator retain client records at their personal location, by disclosing client information to the service center’s business partners without client consent, or by using client information for marketing purposes. If a contractual confidentiality provision conflicts with ORS 475A.450, the statute governs.

Confidentiality provisions also cannot prohibit a worker from reporting regulatory violations to OPS, from cooperating with an OPS investigation, or from disclosing information required to be disclosed by law. ORS 475A.489 provides whistleblower protection for employees of licensees who report violations in good faith. A confidentiality clause that purports to prohibit reporting to OPS is unenforceable to that extent.

Independent contractor vs. employee: why it matters

Many facilitators working at service centers do so as independent contractors rather than employees. The distinction matters for several reasons.

For the facilitator, independent contractor status typically means no access to employment benefits, no workers’ compensation coverage, and — importantly — a different analysis of whether employment-law-based protections apply. Oregon’s non-compete statute applies to employees. Independent contractor non-compete provisions may be evaluated under general contract law rather than ORS 653.295, which means the restrictive conditions and the 12-month durational limit may not apply in the same way. A facilitator who is classified as an independent contractor and signs a non-compete agreement should have it reviewed by an attorney under both ORS 653.295 (if there is any question about the employment classification) and general contract enforceability standards.

For the service center, the classification affects vicarious liability for the facilitator’s conduct, tax obligations, and the records custody analysis. Under OAR 333-333-4820, client records must be stored at the service center regardless of whether the facilitator is an employee or an independent contractor — the records obligation runs to the service center as the licensed entity, not to the employment classification.

Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is an area Oregon has actively enforced. A service center that controls how and when a facilitator works — setting the schedule, directing the work, providing all equipment and space, and prohibiting outside work — may have classified a worker as an independent contractor who the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries would treat as an employee. Misclassification creates liability for unpaid wages, benefits, and employment taxes.

What facilitator agreements should address

A facilitator agreement — whether employment or independent contractor — between a service center and a facilitator should address at minimum: the scope of services and session types covered; compensation structure; records custody and access (confirming that records are held at the service center under OAR 333-333-4820); insurance obligations and whether the facilitator is covered under the service center’s policy or must carry their own; what happens to client relationships and records if the facilitator leaves; any non-solicitation provisions and their scope and duration; and the process for resolving disputes.

A facilitator who is presented with an agreement that is silent on records custody, insurance coverage, or post-termination client contact should not assume favorable answers to those questions. Silence on records custody, for example, does not mean the facilitator can retain copies — OAR 333-333-4820’s requirements apply regardless of what the agreement says or doesn’t say.

What to review before signing any agreement

Before signing any employment or independent contractor agreement in the psychedelic industry, a worker should identify and evaluate: any non-compete clause and whether it meets the enforceability conditions under ORS 653.295; any non-solicitation clause and its scope, duration, and interaction with ORS 475A.450; any confidentiality provision and whether it conflicts with statutory obligations or whistleblower protections; the employment vs. independent contractor classification and whether it accurately reflects the actual working relationship; and any arbitration clause that requires disputes to be resolved outside of court, including whether it waives class action rights.

A brief consultation with an employment attorney before signing is considerably less expensive than litigation over an agreement’s enforceability after a dispute has arisen.

When public information may be enough

ORS 653.295 (Oregon non-compete statute) is publicly available through the Oregon Legislative Assembly. Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (ORS 646.461 et seq.) is also publicly available. Oregon BOLI publishes guidance on independent contractor classification and employment law at oregon.gov/boli. ORS 475A.489 (whistleblower protection) and ORS 475A.450 (client confidentiality) are publicly available through the Oregon Legislative Assembly.

When you should speak with a lawyer

A worker who has been presented with an employment or independent contractor agreement containing a non-compete clause, a broad non-solicitation clause, or confidentiality terms that may conflict with ORS 475A.450 should consult an employment attorney before signing. A worker who has left a service center and is uncertain whether their post-employment conduct is restricted by their prior agreement should consult an attorney before contacting former clients, competing for former clients, or starting a new practice. A service center that wants to ensure its agreements are enforceable and accurately classify its workers should have its standard agreements reviewed by employment counsel.

You might also want to read

• What a facilitator can and cannot do during a session
• Recordkeeping requirements for Oregon and Colorado facilitators
• What facilitators need to know about client confidentiality and data privacy
• Professional liability and insurance for psychedelic facilitators
• Could psychedelic participation affect my job, career, or professional license?