Jeremy David and Mark Springer v. Freedom Bans, LLC

Seattle, Washington employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who challenged non-compete agreements.



In Washington, employers who pay their employees less than twice the minimum wage cannot prohibit them from working second jobs, subject to a few, limited exceptions. RCW 49.62.070. This statute recognizes the importance of workforce mobility and places certain limits on what an employer can require of its employees. E.g., RCW 49.62.005. 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 theyaccept an additional job with another employer. RCW 49.62.070. Employers and employees have reasonable expectations of one another. Employees work for employers with expectations of being paid, and employers hire employees with expectations that those employees do not act in ways that would affirmatively detract from the employer's business. This is part of the common law duty of loyalty. Employers may impose restrictions consistent with the common law duty of loyalty, but the legislature requires this duty to be narrowly construed. RCW 49.62.070(2)(b), .005(3). Here, an employer required its employees to sign a noncompete agreement restricting them from directly or indirectly engaging in any business that competed with the employer company. This case requires us to clarify the scope and application of the statute as it relates to this noncompete agreement.The legislature expressly directed that we liberally construe protections for employees and narrowly confine the exception for the common law duty of loyaltyin order to effectuate its intent to (1) safeguard low wage workers from unfair restrictions on additional employment in noncompete agreements and (2) promote workforce mobility. RCW 49.62.110, .005.



Non-compete agreements must be narrow and reasonable.

Reversed