Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ 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 definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Earnings" means the compensation reflected on box one of the employee's United States internal revenue service form W-2 that is paid to an employee over the prior year, or portion thereof for which the employee was employed, annualized and calculated as of the earlier of the date enforcement of the noncompetition covenant is sought or the date of separation from employment. "Earnings" also means payments reported on internal revenue service form 1099-MISC for independent contractors.
(2) "Employee" and "employer" have the same meanings as in RCW 49.17.020.
(3) "Franchisor" and "franchisee" have the same meanings as in RCW 19.100.010.
(4) "Noncompetition covenant" includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract by which an employee or independent contractor is prohibited or restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind. A "noncompetition covenant" also includes an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer. A "noncompetition covenant" does not include: (a) A nonsolicitation agreement; (b) a confidentiality agreement; (c) a covenant prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions; (d) a covenant entered into by a person purchasing or selling the goodwill of a business or otherwise acquiring or disposing of an ownership interest, but only if the person signing the covenant purchases, sells, acquires, or disposes of an interest representing one percent or more of the business; or (e) a covenant entered into by a franchisee when the franchise sale complies with RCW 19.100.020(1).
(5) "Nonsolicitation agreement" means an agreement between an employer and employee that prohibits solicitation by an employee, upon termination of employment: (a) Of any employee of the employer to leave the employer; or (b) of any current customer of the employer to cease or reduce the extent to which it is doing business with the employer.
(6) "Party seeking enforcement" means the named plaintiff or claimant in a proceeding to enforce a noncompetition covenant or the defendant in an action for declaratory relief.
[ 2024 c 36 s 2; 2019 c 299 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2020–2024 · leading case: Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 15× “Statutory Interpretation 14 Based on the Court’s research, no court has yet interpreted RCW 49.62.010’s 15 definition of “noncompetition covenant.”
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 7× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010 (1). 5 A worker’s “earnings” are calculated on the earlier of “the date of separation” 6 or “the date enforcement of the noncompetition covenant is sought.”
A Place For Mom Inc v. Perkins (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 4× “20 See Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010 (4). The statute defines a non-solicitation clause as “an 21 agreement between an employer and employee that prohibits solicitation by an employee, upon 22 termination of employment: (a) [o]f any employee of the employer to leave the employer;…”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 4× “Defendants would have 4 the Court ignore RCW 49.62.010(2) in its entirety, which it is not free to do.”
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Owen argues that Wellspring’s definition of “client” contradicts RCW 49.62.010’s definition of “customer” and was therefore intended to expand the definition of a client to encompass former clients for no real purpose other than to restrain competition.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “2020); 6 RCW 49.62.010(4) (“‘Noncompetition covenant’ includes every written or oral covenant .”
Culver v. 3M Co. (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 3× “In his response, the Plaintiff states that 16 “[i]n order to fully satisfy any potential confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff seeks 17 declaratory relief in the Amended Complaint, making the Plaintiff in this case the ‘party seeking 18 enforcement’ pursuant to RCW…”
JTH Tax LLC v. McHugh (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “However, 24 25 RCW 49.62.010(4) states, “A ‘noncompetition covenant’ does not include: (a) A 26 nonsolicitation agreement; (b) a confidentiality agreement; (c) a covenant prohibiting use or 27 disclosure of trade secrets or inventions; (d) a covenant entered into by a person…”
Isosceles Holdings, LLC v. All. Env't Grp. LLC (D. Or. 2023). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010 (4) (2019) (exempting non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements, and covenants prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions, among others, from definition of non- competition agreements); id.”
Permobil, Inc. v. Westphal (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010 (4). Washington enacted legislation about one topic, that Act mandates the venue on all claims asserted, regardless of the fact that Washington law does not speak to the other causes of action.”
Belew-Nyquist v. Quincy Sch. Dist. No 144 (E.D. Wash. 2020). “RCW 49.62.010. Due to the similar framework, “Washington 6 courts often look to federal case law on Title VII when interpreting the WLAD.”
CVS Pharmacy Inc v. Brown (W.D. Wash. 2021). “(RSU Agreement ¶ 8); RCW 49.62.010(4)(d). Second, applying Rhode Island to 20 the record before it, the Court also finds that the noncompete is unreasonable as enforced against 21 Brown.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010(2) — 1 case
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Defendants would have 4 the Court ignore RCW 49.62.010(2) in its entirety, which it is not free to do.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010(4) — 6 cases
Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021). “Statutory Interpretation 14 Based on the Court’s research, no court has yet interpreted RCW 49.62.010’s 15 definition of “noncompetition covenant.”
JTH Tax LLC v. McHugh (W.D. Wash. 2020). “However, 24 25 RCW 49.62.010(4) states, “A ‘noncompetition covenant’ does not include: (a) A 26 nonsolicitation agreement; (b) a confidentiality agreement; (c) a covenant prohibiting use or 27 disclosure of trade secrets or inventions; (d) a covenant entered into by a person…”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Defendants would have 4 the Court ignore RCW 49.62.010(2) in its entirety, which it is not free to do.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). “2020); 6 RCW 49.62.010(4) (“‘Noncompetition covenant’ includes every written or oral covenant .”
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Owen argues that Wellspring’s definition of “client” contradicts RCW 49.62.010’s definition of “customer” and was therefore intended to expand the definition of a client to encompass former clients for no real purpose other than to restrain competition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010(4)(d) — 1 case
CVS Pharmacy Inc v. Brown (W.D. Wash. 2021). “(RSU Agreement ¶ 8); RCW 49.62.010(4)(d). Second, applying Rhode Island to 20 the record before it, the Court also finds that the noncompete is unreasonable as enforced against 21 Brown.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010(5) — 4 cases
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Owen argues that Wellspring’s definition of “client” contradicts RCW 49.62.010’s definition of “customer” and was therefore intended to expand the definition of a client to encompass former clients for no real purpose other than to restrain competition.”
Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021). “Statutory Interpretation 14 Based on the Court’s research, no court has yet interpreted RCW 49.62.010’s 15 definition of “noncompetition covenant.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Defendants would have 4 the Court ignore RCW 49.62.010(2) in its entirety, which it is not free to do.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). “2020); 6 RCW 49.62.010(4) (“‘Noncompetition covenant’ includes every written or oral covenant .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.010(6) — 1 case
Culver v. 3M Co. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “In his response, the Plaintiff states that 16 “[i]n order to fully satisfy any potential confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff seeks 17 declaratory relief in the Amended Complaint, making the Plaintiff in this case the ‘party seeking 18 enforcement’ pursuant to RCW…”
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.