Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020 (2026)
When void and unenforceable
✓ 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) ***
(1) A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable:
(a)(i) Unless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer of employment and, if the agreement becomes enforceable only at a later date due to changes in the employee's compensation, the employer specifically discloses that the agreement may be enforceable against the employee in the future; or
(ii) If the covenant is entered into after the commencement of employment, unless the employer provides independent consideration for the covenant;
(b) Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year. This dollar amount must be adjusted annually in accordance with RCW 49.62.040;
(c) If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.
(2) A court or arbitrator must presume that any noncompetition covenant with a duration exceeding eighteen months after termination of employment is unreasonable and unenforceable. A party seeking enforcement may rebut the presumption by proving by clear and convincing evidence that a duration longer than eighteen months is necessary to protect the party's business or goodwill.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020).
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). “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.”
A Place For Mom Inc v. Perkins (W.D. Wash. 2020). “First, the terms of the 15 non-compete agreement must be disclosed no later than when the offer is accepted.”
Culver v. 3M Co. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “17 The Plaintiff makes claims against 3M for violation of RCW 49.62.020, by enforcing a 18 non-compete covenant after he was terminated by layoff without payment of wages.”
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Owen offers no legal support for her argument. Moreover, even if were to accept Owen’s characterization of the Nonsolicitation Agreement as a noncompetition covenant, not all noncompetition covenants are unenforceable.”
Gomez (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW 49.62.020(1) states that a “noncompetition covenant is void and 10 unenforceable: (a)(i) [u]nless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the 11 prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer 12 13 of…”
United Energy Workers Healthcare Corp. v. ACT Now DME LLC (E.D. Wash. 2020). “18 Under RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void against an 19 employee unless the employee’s earnings exceed one hundred thousand dollars per 20 year.”
Prime Grp. Inc v. Dixon (W.D. Wash. 2021). “” RCW 49.62.020(2). However, a party 6 seeking to enforce the noncompete covenant “may rebut the presumption by proving by 7 clear and convincing evidence that a duration longer than eighteen months is necessary to 8 protect the party’s business or goodwill.”
Groupon, Inc. v. Shin (N.D. Ill. 2022). “Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020 . Additionally, a noncompete clause is presumed void if its duration exceeds 18 months.”
Oregon Tool Inc v. IronCraft LLC (E.D. Wash. 2023). “See RCW 49.62.020(1)(b). There remain significant legal disputes 4 as to the enforceability of the clauses that Oregon Tool has claimed Haefer 5 breached, and the Court declines to find in its favor upon the limited briefing now 6 before it.”
Servco Ins. Servs. Washington LLC v. Soroko (W.D. Wash. 2020). “See RCW 49.62.020(2); Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “While the 11 incorporated definitions may create an ambiguity in RCW 49.62.020 (i.e., a court may ultimately 12 have to apply Washington’s rules of statutory interpretation to determine whether that subsection 13 14 applies only to employees or to employees and independent…”
Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW 49.62.020 (1)(b). Under 4 the NCA, a noncompetition covenant “includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or 5 contract by which an employee or independent contractor is prohibited or restrained from 6 engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(1) — 2 cases
Gomez (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW 49.62.020(1) states that a “noncompetition covenant is void and 10 unenforceable: (a)(i) [u]nless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the 11 prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer 12 13 of…”
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Owen offers no legal support for her argument. Moreover, even if were to accept Owen’s characterization of the Nonsolicitation Agreement as a noncompetition covenant, not all noncompetition covenants are unenforceable.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(1)(a) — 1 case
Wellspring Fam. Serv., V. Nancy R. Owen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Owen offers no legal support for her argument. Moreover, even if were to accept Owen’s characterization of the Nonsolicitation Agreement as a noncompetition covenant, not all noncompetition covenants are unenforceable.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(1)(a)(i) — 3 cases
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). “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.”
A Place For Mom Inc v. Perkins (W.D. Wash. 2020). “First, the terms of the 15 non-compete agreement must be disclosed no later than when the offer is accepted.”
Gomez (W.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW 49.62.020(1) states that a “noncompetition covenant is void and 10 unenforceable: (a)(i) [u]nless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the 11 prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer 12 13 of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(1)(b) — 2 cases
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). “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.”
Oregon Tool Inc v. IronCraft LLC (E.D. Wash. 2023). “See RCW 49.62.020(1)(b). There remain significant legal disputes 4 as to the enforceability of the clauses that Oregon Tool has claimed Haefer 5 breached, and the Court declines to find in its favor upon the limited briefing now 6 before it.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(1)(c) — 1 case
A Place For Mom Inc v. Perkins (W.D. Wash. 2020). “First, the terms of the 15 non-compete agreement must be disclosed no later than when the offer is accepted.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(2) — 3 cases
Prime Grp. Inc v. Dixon (W.D. Wash. 2021). “” RCW 49.62.020(2). However, a party 6 seeking to enforce the noncompete covenant “may rebut the presumption by proving by 7 clear and convincing evidence that a duration longer than eighteen months is necessary to 8 protect the party’s business or goodwill.”
Culver v. 3M Co. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “17 The Plaintiff makes claims against 3M for violation of RCW 49.62.020, by enforcing a 18 non-compete covenant after he was terminated by layoff without payment of wages.”
Servco Ins. Servs. Washington LLC v. Soroko (W.D. Wash. 2020). “See RCW 49.62.020(2); Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(b) — 1 case
Arthun v. Nexus Surgical Innovations Inc (E.D. Wash. 2020). “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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.020(c) — 1 case
Culver v. 3M Co. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “17 The Plaintiff makes claims against 3M for violation of RCW 49.62.020, by enforcing a 18 non-compete covenant after he was terminated by layoff without payment of wages.”
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.