Are Non-Competes Enforceable in Washington? (2026)

Washington's Current Law on Non-Compete Agreements

The state legislature set the tone in RCW 49.62.005, finding that workforce mobility drives economic growth and that agreements limiting competition may be unreasonable contracts of adhesion. It directed that the chapter's protections be read liberally and its exceptions read narrowly.

The definition itself is broad. Under RCW 49.62.010, a noncompetition covenant is every written or oral agreement that restrains a worker from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business, including one that indirectly bars accepting business from a customer. The chapter also displaces conflicting contract and tort rules on competition, as RCW 49.62.090 explains, without disturbing the state's trade secret law.

Timing matters too. RCW 49.62.100 applies the chapter to all proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 2020, no matter when the dispute arose.

Agreements Employers Can Still Enforce Against Former Workers

Several familiar contracts sit outside the definition entirely. RCW 49.62.010 excludes each of the following from the term noncompetition covenant:

• Nonsolicitation agreements covering the employer's staff or current customers
• Confidentiality agreements, which differ from an NDA in scope and use
• Covenants barring use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions
• Covenants tied to buying or selling at least one percent of a business
• Covenants signed by a franchisee when the franchise sale follows state law

Trade secret protection runs on a separate track. RCW 19.108.010 defines a trade secret as information that draws independent economic value from not being generally known and that the owner takes reasonable steps to keep secret. Under RCW 19.108.020, a court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation, or condition future use on a reasonable royalty.

Income Thresholds and Worker Categories the Law Covers

Pay is the first gate. RCW 49.62.020 voids a covenant unless the employee's annualized earnings from the party seeking enforcement exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year. For independent contractors, RCW 49.62.030 sets the bar at two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Those figures move. RCW 49.62.040 requires the Department of Labor and Industries to adjust them every September 30th using the CPI-W, with the new amount taking effect the following January 1st, so the current number is higher than the one printed in the statute.

Lower earners get a separate shield. RCW 49.62.070 bars an employer from stopping an employee who earns less than twice the state minimum hourly wage from taking a second job or freelancing, subject to safety, scheduling, and duty-of-loyalty limits. Performers get a hard cap as well, since a covenant between a performer and a performance space may not exceed three calendar days.

Notice an Employer Must Give Before You Sign

Disclosure is the second gate. RCW 49.62.020 voids a covenant unless the employer puts its terms in writing to the prospective employee no later than the initial acceptance of the job offer. If the agreement only becomes enforceable later because pay rises, the employer must say so specifically.

Mid-career requests carry a price. A covenant added to existing employment contracts after the job begins is void unless the employer provides independent consideration for it. And if a layoff ends the job, enforcement requires paying the worker base salary for the restricted period, minus what they earn elsewhere during it.

Employers cannot route around any of this. RCW 49.62.050 voids any provision forcing a Washington-based worker to litigate out of state, applying another state's law, or otherwise stripping the chapter's protections.

Penalties Employers Face for an Overbroad Covenant

Length is presumed against the employer. RCW 49.62.020 requires a court or arbitrator to presume that a covenant lasting more than eighteen months after termination is unreasonable, and the party seeking enforcement must rebut that with clear and convincing evidence that a longer term is necessary to protect its business or goodwill.

The remedy is unusually direct. Under RCW 49.62.080, a violator owes the aggrieved worker the greater of actual damages or a five thousand dollar statutory penalty, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. The same payment is owed when a court merely reforms or partially enforces the covenant, so narrowing a bad agreement does not spare the employer.

The attorney general may also pursue relief on a worker's behalf. Franchisors face their own bar under RCW 49.62.060, which blocks restrictions on a franchisee hiring workers from the franchisor or another franchisee, and broad restraints of trade draw scrutiny under RCW 19.86.030.

Simplify Your Business Paperwork With ConsumerShield

A solid template saves time and lowers the risk of issuing a covenant Washington law will void before anyone reads it. If you are drafting an agreement, explore ConsumerShield's online tools and resources to learn more today.