Are Non-Competes Enforceable in Washington State?

Non-competes are enforceable in Washington state only in narrow circumstances. Under RCW 49.62, the agreement is void unless you earn above a specific annual threshold, and even then it must meet strict requirements on how it was presented, how long it lasts, and how broadly it restricts you. If any requirement fails, a court will throw the agreement out and can order your employer to pay you $5,000 plus your attorney fees.

The Income Threshold Comes First

Washington ties enforceability directly to earnings, and the Department of Labor and Industries adjusts the figures each year for inflation. For 2026:

A non-compete against an employee is void unless annualized W-2 earnings (Box 1) exceed $126,858.83.¹
A non-compete against an independent contractor is void unless annualized 1099 earnings from the party trying to enforce it exceed $317,147.09.¹

What matters is what you earned when the covenant was signed or became enforceable. If your pay was below the line then, the agreement is automatically void, even if you later cross the threshold. Employers sometimes write agreements that spring into force once compensation rises; the statute allows this.²

If you earn below the threshold, you can stop reading here as far as enforceability is concerned. The agreement cannot be used against you.

What Actually Counts as a Non-Compete

The statute defines a “noncompetition covenant” broadly. It covers any agreement restricting you from working in a lawful profession, trade, or business. It also reaches agreements that stop you from accepting work from, or doing business with, a customer of your former employer — even a customer you never solicited.

Several related clauses are not treated as non-competes and do not have to meet these rules:

A non-solicitation agreement limited to your former employer’s current customers. If it reaches former or prospective customers, it is a non-compete and must satisfy every requirement.
Confidentiality agreements and trade-secret or invention-assignment clauses.
A non-compete signed in connection with the sale of a business, if the signer holds at least a one percent ownership interest.
A covenant tied to a franchise sale that complies with Washington’s franchise investment protection law.

Courts look at what a clause actually restricts, not what the employer labels it. A “non-solicitation” clause that sweeps in prospective customers is a non-compete in substance and gets measured against the full statute.³

How and When You Had to Be Given the Agreement

Timing is the second place most non-competes fail.

If You Were a New Hire

The employer had to disclose the complete written terms no later than the time you accepted the offer, whether that acceptance was oral or written. An agreement handed to you on your first day of work is too late, and it is void.²

If You Already Worked There

If the employer asked you to sign after your start date, the agreement is void unless the employer gave you independent consideration — something of genuine new value you were not already entitled to receive. A meaningful raise, a promotion, a signing bonus, or new equity can qualify. Continued employment does not. This is where company-wide policy rollouts often collapse: the employer hands every current employee a new non-compete and offers nothing extra, and the agreements are unenforceable from the moment they are signed.²

Duration and Scope

A non-compete lasting longer than 18 months after you leave is presumed unreasonable and unenforceable. The employer can try to overcome that presumption only with clear and convincing evidence that a longer restriction is necessary to protect its business or goodwill. That is a high bar, and most employers cannot meet it. In practice, 18 months is the functional ceiling.²

Beyond length, the restriction has to be reasonable in what it prohibits and where. Courts ask whether it is no wider than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest such as trade secrets, proprietary customer relationships, or specialized training the employer paid for. General skills and ordinary experience do not justify locking you out of your field.

Laid Off? The Employer Has to Keep Paying You

If you were terminated as part of a layoff, the non-compete is only enforceable if the employer keeps paying your base salary through the entire restriction period. Anything you earn from new work during that time can be offset against the payments. Most employers quietly release laid-off workers from their non-competes rather than keep writing checks for up to 18 months.²

Out-of-State Choice-of-Law Clauses Don’t Work

Some employers insert clauses requiring that any dispute be governed by another state’s law or filed in another state’s courts, usually a state friendlier to non-competes. Washington blocks this. If you are a Washington-based employee or independent contractor, any provision requiring adjudication outside Washington, applying another state’s substantive law, or otherwise depriving you of the chapter’s protections is void.⁴

Agreements You Signed Before 2020

The statute took effect January 1, 2020, and it applies to any legal proceeding brought on or after that date, no matter when the non-compete was signed. If an employer tries to enforce a non-compete you signed in 2017, that agreement must satisfy every current requirement, including the earnings threshold and the 18-month cap.⁵

You cannot sue over an old non-compete that is just sitting in a drawer, however. The retroactive protections activate only when the employer actually tries to use it against you.⁶

What You Can Collect If the Agreement Is Invalid

If a court or arbitrator finds that a non-compete violates any part of the statute, the employer must pay you the greater of your actual damages or a flat $5,000 statutory penalty, plus your reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs.⁶

The same penalty applies when a judge rewrites an overly broad restriction to make it reasonable, sometimes called “blue penciling.” In most states, judicial reformation is a win for the employer because the restriction survives in narrower form. In Washington, reformation still triggers the $5,000 minimum and attorney fees, which pushes employers to draft reasonable agreements from the start.⁶

The attorney-fee provision matters because it changes the economics of fighting back. Without it, many workers would comply with an unenforceable agreement rather than hire a lawyer. That is often exactly what the employer is counting on.

What About the Federal Ban?

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a nationwide rule that would have banned most non-competes. It never took effect. Multiple federal courts blocked it, the FTC withdrew its appeals in September 2025, and the agency formally removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations in February 2026. The FTC has moved to case-by-case challenges instead of a blanket ban. For Washington workers, the practical impact is minimal: the state protections above apply regardless of what happens at the federal level.

1
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Non-Compete Agreements
2
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 49.62.020 – When Void and Unenforceable
3
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 49.62 – Noncompetition Covenants
4
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 49.62.050 – Provisions of Covenant Void and Unenforceable
5
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 49.62.100 – Application
6
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 49.62.080 – Violation of This Chapter, Relief, Remedies