There are three terms that definitely make a noncompete unenforceable if any one of them is satisfied. If none of them are satisfied, then enforceability would be determined the same as it would have before this new law.

The first term is that it is unenforceable:

• Unless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the acceptance of the offer of employment and, if the agreement becomes enforceable only at a later date due to changes in the employee's compensation, the employer specifically discloses that the agreement may be enforceable against the employee in the future

or

• If the covenant is entered into after the commencement of employment, unless the employer provides independent consideration for the covenant.

The second term is that it is unenforceable:

• Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year.

The third term is that it is unenforceable:

• If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.

So...if you earn more than $100k, and you were properly notified of it when hired (or paid to accept it if it was added on later), and you are not leaving due to a layoff or they aren't willing to keep paying you while the noncompete runs out, then it might be enforceable.

To an extent. The boundaries aren't thoroughly tested in court.

And it seniority not just $$ that is one of the key tests ie for a director or C level.