Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211 (2026)
Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions—Retaliation by employer prohibited—Penalties—Construction
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A provision in an agreement by an employer and an employee not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed under Washington state, federal, or common law to be illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation, or sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, is void and unenforceable. Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in agreements concern conduct that occurs at the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees, or between an employer and an employee, whether on or off the employment premises. Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions include those contained in employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, agreements to pay compensation in exchange for the release of a legal claim, or any other agreement between an employer and an employee.
(2) This section does not prohibit the enforcement of a provision in any agreement that prohibits the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement of a claim.
(3) It is a violation of this section for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee for disclosing or discussing conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be illegal harassment, illegal discrimination, illegal retaliation, wage and hour violations, or sexual assault, that is recognized as illegal under state, federal, or common law, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, occurring in the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees, or between an employer and an employee, whether on or off the employment premises.
(4) It is a violation of this section for an employer to request or require that an employee enter into any agreement provision that is prohibited by this section.
(5) It is a violation of this section for an employer to attempt to enforce a provision of an agreement prohibited by this section, whether through a lawsuit, a threat to enforce, or any other attempt to influence a party to comply with a provision in any agreement that is prohibited by this section.
(6) This section does not prohibit an employer and an employee from protecting trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential information that does not involve illegal acts.
(7) An employer who violates this section after June 9, 2022, is liable in a civil cause of action for actual or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is more, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
(8) For the purposes of this section, "employee" means a current, former, or prospective employee or independent contractor.
(9) A nondisclosure or nondisparagement provision in any agreement signed by an employee who is a Washington resident is governed by Washington law.
(10) The provisions of this section are to be liberally construed to fulfill its remedial purpose.
(11) As an exercise of the state's police powers and for remedial purposes, this section is retroactive from June 9, 2022, only to invalidate nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions in agreements created before June 9, 2022, and which were agreed to at the outset of employment or during the course of employment. This subsection allows the recovery of damages only to prevent the enforcement of those provisions. This subsection does not apply to a nondisclosure or nondisparagement provision contained in an agreement to settle a legal claim.
[ 2022 c 133 s 2.]
Notes:
Intent—2022 c 133: "The legislature recognizes that there exists a strong public policy in favor of the disclosure of illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, wage and hour violations, and sexual assault, that is recognized as illegal under Washington state, federal, or common law, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, that occurs at the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees, or between an employer and an employee, whether on or off the employment premises. Nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in agreements between employers and current, former, prospective employees, and independent contractors have become routine and perpetuate illegal conduct by silencing those who are victims or who have knowledge of illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, wage and hour violations, or sexual assault. It is the intent of the legislature to prohibit nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in agreements, which defeat the strong public policy in favor of disclosure." [ 2022 c 133 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2024–2025 · leading case: Onshore Quality Control Specialists LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025).
Onshore Quality Control Specialists LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Bromley began asserting 18 the Settlement Agreement violated Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), 19 RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 85. Mr. Bromley demanded an additional settlement 20 payment to release his new SNMA claims.”
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
Stonelake v. Meta Platforms Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW § 49.44.211. Subsection (3) of 14 the statute provides that 15 [i]t is a violation of this section for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee for disclosing or discussing conduct 16 that the employee reasonably believed to be…”
Roberson v. SEIU Healthcare 1199NW (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Roberson from disclosing the discrimination alleged in this 15 lawsuit in violation of RCW 49.44.211.” (Id.) 16 Roberson brings nine claims: (1) race and gender discrimination under the Washington 17 Law Against Discrimination (SAC ¶¶ 5.”
Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “62 and Washington’s 19 Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 2–3 ¶¶ 1.1.–1.2. He asserts that he is 20 entitled to statutory damages and requests an injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing 21 the clauses.”
Onshore Quality Control Servs. LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Steven Bromley sent a demand letter to 21 counsel for Plaintiff Onshore Quality Control Specialists (Onshore), alleging five 22 violations of Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211, as well as 23 violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW…”
Levy (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Levy filed a complaint against Google in King County 13 Superior Court seeking damages and bringing claims for (1) retaliation under 14 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (“SNMA”), RCW 49.”
City Of Burien, V. Carol Allread (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). ““To determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial, we determine whether ‘such a feeling of prejudice [has] 9 Allread asserts for the first time in her reply brief on appeal that the separation agreement constitutes retaliation in…”
Hutto v. Orion Sys. Integrators LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “; and Washington’s Silenced No 11 More Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211 . See generally Dkt.”
Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Bromley began asserting the draft settlement violated 20 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211. ECF No. 22-2 at 1 85. Mr. Bromley initially refused to sign a settlement which did not provide him an 2 additional settlement payment to release his new SNMA claims,…”
Stonelake (W.D. Wash. 2025). “In that MTD Order, the Court 17 found, among other things, that Stonelake failed to state a claim for (1) wrongful discharge in 18 violation of public policy (“WDVPP”), and (2) retaliation pursuant to Washington State’s Silenced 19 No More Act (“SNMA”), RCW § 49.44.211. Id. at…”
Master Builders Ass'n, V. Colleen Flynn (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “3 Enacted in 2022, the Silenced No More Act states that “an agreement by an employer and an employee not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(1) — 6 cases
Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “62 and Washington’s 19 Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 2–3 ¶¶ 1.1.–1.2. He asserts that he is 20 entitled to statutory damages and requests an injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing 21 the clauses.”
Roberson v. SEIU Healthcare 1199NW (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Roberson from disclosing the discrimination alleged in this 15 lawsuit in violation of RCW 49.44.211.” (Id.) 16 Roberson brings nine claims: (1) race and gender discrimination under the Washington 17 Law Against Discrimination (SAC ¶¶ 5.”
City Of Burien, V. Carol Allread (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). ““To determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial, we determine whether ‘such a feeling of prejudice [has] 9 Allread asserts for the first time in her reply brief on appeal that the separation agreement constitutes retaliation in…”
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(10) — 1 case
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(11) — 1 case
Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “62 and Washington’s 19 Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 2–3 ¶¶ 1.1.–1.2. He asserts that he is 20 entitled to statutory damages and requests an injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing 21 the clauses.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(3) — 2 cases
Levy (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Levy filed a complaint against Google in King County 13 Superior Court seeking damages and bringing claims for (1) retaliation under 14 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (“SNMA”), RCW 49.”
Stonelake v. Meta Platforms Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW § 49.44.211. Subsection (3) of 14 the statute provides that 15 [i]t is a violation of this section for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee for disclosing or discussing conduct 16 that the employee reasonably believed to be…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(4) — 3 cases
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
Roberson v. SEIU Healthcare 1199NW (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Roberson from disclosing the discrimination alleged in this 15 lawsuit in violation of RCW 49.44.211.” (Id.) 16 Roberson brings nine claims: (1) race and gender discrimination under the Washington 17 Law Against Discrimination (SAC ¶¶ 5.”
Onshore Quality Control Specialists LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Bromley began asserting 18 the Settlement Agreement violated Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), 19 RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 85. Mr. Bromley demanded an additional settlement 20 payment to release his new SNMA claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(5) — 1 case
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.211(7) — 4 cases
Onshore Quality Control Servs. LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Steven Bromley sent a demand letter to 21 counsel for Plaintiff Onshore Quality Control Specialists (Onshore), alleging five 22 violations of Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211, as well as 23 violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW…”
Empey v. Caliber Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). “1 Empey further alleges that during settlement talks, Caliber violated Washington’s Silenced No 2 More Act, RCW 49.44.211 (“SNMA”). Dkt. 17. 3 Caliber now contends that the allegations related to Mr.”
Onshore Quality Control Specialists LLC v. Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Bromley began asserting 18 the Settlement Agreement violated Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), 19 RCW 49.44.211. Id. at 85. Mr. Bromley demanded an additional settlement 20 payment to release his new SNMA claims.”
Bromley (E.D. Wash. 2025). “Bromley began asserting the draft settlement violated 20 Washington’s Silenced No More Act (SNMA), RCW 49.44.211. ECF No. 22-2 at 1 85. Mr. Bromley initially refused to sign a settlement which did not provide him an 2 additional settlement payment to release his new SNMA claims,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.