Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.62
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.005 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 1155-S.SL) ***
The legislature finds that:
(1) Workforce mobility is important to economic growth and development;
(2) Agreements limiting competition or hiring may be contracts of adhesion that may be unreasonable; and
(3) The provisions in this chapter facilitating workforce mobility and protecting employees and independent contractors need to be liberally construed and exceptions narrowly construed.
[ 2024 c 36 s 1; 2019 c 299 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC (Wash. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC (Wash. 2025). · cites it 10× “Our legislature has recognized that some workers must have multiple jobs to earn a living wage, and a worker’s original employer should not have complete control over whether they David v. Freedom Vans LLC No. 102566-1 accept an additional job with another employer.”
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 4× “Noncompetition Covenant 12 Washington State’s new anti-noncompete law, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020 , 13 was enacted based on the legislature’s finding that “workforce mobility is important 14 to economic growth and development.”
Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 3× “” RCW 49.62.005. 23 The Agency Agreement here contains a provision, Section I.”
Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “” RCW 49.62.005. 11 Hager contends that this matter should be remanded because the Complaint does not even 12 allege a hypothetical injury due to Defendants’ violation of the NCA.”
Gomez (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “The Court does note, however, that it agrees with Gomez that the public 1 2 interest is most likely served by denying this Motion given the language of RCW 49.62.005. 3 See Dkt. #19 at 16. 4 IV.”
Jeremy David & Mark Springer, Apps/x-resps V. Freedon Vans Llc, Resp/x-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “At issue here is the statute’s provision that governs an employer’s authority to restrict supplemental employment, RCW 49.62.070. The statute provides: Employees having an additional job—When authorized.”
Permobil, Inc. v. Westphal (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “The vast majority of Defendant’s argument rests on the proposition that the Washington Non-Compete Act (“WNA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.005 et al., renders void the forum selection clause, and the non-compete provisions in the Employment Agreement.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “RCW 49.62.005. The legislature’s goal of 21 ensuring that Washington laborers have the flexibility to change jobs (or are substantially 22 compensated if they give up that flexibility) is accomplished through the imposition of 23 restrictions on noncompete provisions regardless…”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). “RCW 49.62.005. The 26 legislature’s goal of ensuring that Washington laborers have the flexibility to change jobs (or are 27 substantially compensated if they give up that flexibility) is accomplished through the 28 1 imposition of restrictions on noncompete provisions…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.005(2) — 1 case
Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC (Wash. 2025). “Our legislature has recognized that some workers must have multiple jobs to earn a living wage, and a worker’s original employer should not have complete control over whether they David v. Freedom Vans LLC No. 102566-1 accept an additional job with another employer.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.005(3) — 2 cases
Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC (Wash. 2025). “Our legislature has recognized that some workers must have multiple jobs to earn a living wage, and a worker’s original employer should not have complete control over whether they David v. Freedom Vans LLC No. 102566-1 accept an additional job with another employer.”
Gomez (W.D. Wash. 2025). “The Court does note, however, that it agrees with Gomez that the public 1 2 interest is most likely served by denying this Motion given the language of RCW 49.62.005. 3 See Dkt. #19 at 16. 4 IV.”
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.