Washington State Passes Law to Limit Noncompete Agreements for Employees
“General counsel should reevaluate those employees that they try to restrict to ensure that it really is a business necessity,” a Seattle lawyer said in reference to the Washington state law that would limit noncompete clauses in company contracts with employees and independent contractors.
May 06, 2019 at 05:53 PM
3 minute read
The state of Washington has passed, and the governor is expected to sign, a new law that would limit noncompete clauses in company contracts with employees and independent contractors.
Scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, the new law would prohibit all noncompetition agreements for employees whose W-2 earnings are less than $100,000 annually, and for independent contractors paid less than $250,000 per year. Those amounts would be adjusted annually for inflation.
Suzanne Thomas, partner with K&L Gates in Seattle, told Corporate Counsel on Monday she expects the governor to sign the bill into law this week or next. The main impact, she said, is that general counsel “will need to look at all the kinds of restrictive covenants they have to assure compliance no later than Jan. 1, 2020.”
The law would make it riskier and costlier for employers to try and enforce broad noncompete agreements. If the judge rules that the agreement violates the new law, or has to modify any part of the agreement to make it “reasonable,” then the employer must pay the employee the greater of $5,000 or his or her actual damages, plus the employee's attorney fee, expenses and costs.
For most parties, noncompete agreements that last more than 18 months would be presumed unreasonable. For performers in the entertainment industry, the duration is limited to only three days.
If an employer wants to keep a noncompete agreement in place after an employee is laid off, then the employer must pay the employee their base salary during the period of enforcement minus any earnings the employee receives.
The agreement would be void if it requires that disputes be adjudicated outside Washington.
The legislation stems from a franchise sandwich shop that tried to keep its low-wage employees from working for other sandwich shops. So the law would prohibit anti-moonlighting restrictions for employees who earn less than twice Washington's minimum wage, including moonlighting for a competing company.
It would also forbid franchisers from restricting franchisees from soliciting or hiring employees of the franchiser or another franchisee.
Thomas said employees are increasingly uncomfortable with noncompete agreements that limit their mobility. “If it's a janitor, that makes no sense at all,” she explained. “With higher level employees who might really be able to change the trajectory of a company, that's where noncompete agreements make the most sense.”
Thomas advised, “General counsel should reevaluate those employees that they try to restrict to ensure that it really is a business necessity.”
Bruce Cross, a partner with Perkins Coie in Seattle, blogged that the new law could especially impact startup employers.
“This is a major change for Washington employers,” wrote Cross, who could not immediately be reached for comment. “Due to the compensation thresholds, the new law will significantly reduce the chance for startups to use noncompetition agreements, as those employers tend to pay relatively low W-2 compensation, even for key personnel, and instead compensate through equity.”
Both Cross and Thomas were unsure about the retroactivity of the law. “The retroactivity language is muddled at best,” Thomas said. “It could apply retroactively, but we don't know.”
Update: Gov. Jay Inslee signed the law on May 9.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
GC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
California DOJ Fines Robinhood $3.9M in First-Ever Crypto Enforcement Action
Trending Stories
- 1NY Requiring Lawyers to Report Out-of-State Admissions, Public Discipline
- 2Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 3DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 4Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
- 5Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250