Washington State Non-Compete Law: Thresholds, Duration, and Enforcement

Washington State’s non-compete law, set out in Chapter 49.62 of the Revised Code of Washington, is one of the strictest in the country. A non-compete signed by a Washington worker is automatically void unless the employee earns at least $126,858.83 per year in 2026 (or $317,147.09 for independent contractors), the employer discloses the terms in writing before the worker accepts the job, the restriction lasts no longer than 18 months, and, if the worker is laid off, the employer keeps paying their base salary throughout the restricted period. Miss any of those requirements and the agreement cannot be enforced, and the employer that tries owes the worker at least $5,000 plus attorney fees.¹²

The Earnings Threshold Is the First Question

Before anything else in the statute matters, check the pay. The Department of Labor & Industries adjusts the earnings floor every year. For 2026:

Employees: $126,858.83 per year
Independent contractors: $317,147.09 per year

If your earnings from the employer trying to enforce the agreement fall below the applicable figure, the non-compete is void as a matter of law. It doesn’t matter what you signed, and it doesn’t matter what the contract says about severability or reasonableness.¹

For employees, “earnings” means the compensation reported in Box 1 of the W-2, which captures wages, bonuses, commissions, and other taxable pay. The relevant figure is annualized pay from the party trying to enforce, not household income or earnings from a prior year. An employer cannot get around the threshold by pointing to projected future compensation.²

The statute does allow a non-compete to become enforceable later if pay rises above the threshold, but only if the employer specifically disclosed that possibility in writing at the time of signing.²

What Chapter 49.62 Actually Covers

The law reaches any written or oral agreement that stops a worker from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business, including agreements that indirectly block a worker from doing business with specific customers. If the practical effect is to keep you from competing, the statute treats it as a non-compete no matter what the contract is titled.²

Several common restrictions sit outside this framework and are not governed by the income thresholds or penalty provisions:

Nonsolicitation agreements that prevent you from actively recruiting former coworkers or reaching out to specific clients, without barring you from working in the field.
Confidentiality and trade secret provisions, which remain enforceable under separate law.
Non-competes tied to the sale of an ownership interest of at least 1% in a business.
Non-competes in franchise relationships where the sale complies with Washington’s Franchise Investment Protection Act.

The distinction matters because workers sometimes assume a nonsolicitation clause is governed by Chapter 49.62. It isn’t. Those agreements are judged under general contract law.²

Disclosure and Consideration Rules at Signing

Even when the pay threshold is met, the agreement is void unless the employer follows the procedural rules.

For New Hires

The employer must disclose all terms of the non-compete in writing no later than the moment you accept the job offer. Waiting until the first day of work, or slipping the clause into an orientation packet handed over after acceptance, makes the agreement unenforceable. You have to know what you’re agreeing to before committing to the job.³

For Existing Employees

If an employer asks a current worker to sign a non-compete after the job has already started, the statute requires “independent consideration.” The employer has to give you something new and meaningful in exchange, such as a promotion, a significant raise, or a retention bonus. Continued employment alone is not enough. That’s a departure from how many other states handle the issue, and it means non-competes rolled out to existing staff without additional compensation don’t hold up.³

How Long a Non-Compete Can Last

Washington law presumes that any non-compete lasting longer than 18 months is unreasonable. An employer trying to enforce a longer restriction must prove its necessity by clear and convincing evidence, a high bar most employers won’t try to clear.²

For performers, the limit is far shorter: a non-compete between a performer and a performance venue cannot exceed three calendar days.⁴

The statute focuses on duration rather than geography, but courts still evaluate whether the territory covered is reasonable. An agreement barring a worker from a multi-state region when the employer only operates in the Seattle metro area is unlikely to survive review. The test is whether the combined restrictions on time and geography leave you with a realistic ability to earn a living in your field.

If You’re Laid Off, the Employer Has to Pay

This provision is where Washington’s law diverges most sharply from other states. If you’re terminated as part of a layoff or reduction in force, your non-compete becomes void immediately unless the employer keeps paying your base salary for the entire restricted period. The payment equals your base salary at termination, offset by anything you earn from new employment during that period.²

Functionally, this is mandatory garden leave. If the employer stops the payments, the restriction lifts. For most mid-level roles, employers decide the competitive risk isn’t worth writing checks for up to 18 months and let the non-compete drop.

Second Jobs for Lower-Wage Workers

A separate provision in Chapter 49.62 prohibits employers from restricting lower-wage workers from holding a second job, freelancing, or being self-employed. For 2026, this protection covers any employee earning less than twice Washington’s minimum wage of $17.13 per hour, which comes to roughly $34.26 per hour.⁵⁶

Narrow exceptions apply. An employer can still restrict outside work that creates genuine safety concerns or that interferes with normal scheduling expectations, and the provision doesn’t override common-law duties of loyalty or conflict-of-interest rules. Blanket policies telling hourly workers they can’t pick up shifts elsewhere are illegal.⁵

Out-of-State Employers Cannot Contract Around the Law

Some employers try to sidestep Washington’s protections by requiring disputes to be resolved in another state or under another state’s law. The statute shuts this down. For a Washington-based worker, a non-compete provision is void if it:

Requires the dispute to be adjudicated outside Washington
Deprives the worker of any protection in Chapter 49.62
Applies the law of another state instead of Washington law

An employer headquartered in Texas or Florida cannot use a choice-of-law clause to avoid Washington’s thresholds and disclosure requirements when the worker lives and works in Washington.²

What Happens if an Employer Tries to Enforce an Illegal Non-Compete

If a court or arbitrator finds a violation, the employer must pay the worker whichever is greater: actual damages or a flat statutory penalty of $5,000. The employer also owes the worker’s reasonable attorney fees and legal costs.²

Mandatory fee-shifting is what makes the enforcement scheme work. Without it, most workers couldn’t afford to challenge a bad non-compete. With it, an employer with a questionable agreement is looking at funding both sides of the litigation, which is why many drop enforcement or settle rather than push forward. The penalty applies even when a court narrows an overbroad agreement to make it enforceable, because presenting an illegal agreement is itself the violation.

Older Agreements Still Have to Comply

Chapter 49.62 took effect on January 1, 2020, and it reaches back. The law applies to any enforcement action started on or after that date, even if the non-compete was signed years earlier. You cannot bring a claim over a pre-2020 non-compete the employer isn’t actively using against you, but the moment the employer tries to enforce, the agreement has to meet every current requirement, including the earnings threshold.²

So a non-compete signed in 2017 that the employer tries to enforce today is judged by the 2026 rules, not the rules in place when it was signed.

The Federal Non-Compete Ban Is Not in Effect

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide.⁷ A federal district court blocked it, and in September 2025 the FTC voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals and accept the vacatur.⁸ With no federal ban, Chapter 49.62 is the governing law for Washington workers, and it remains one of the more protective frameworks in the country.

1
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Non-Compete Agreements
2
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code Chapter 49.62 – Noncompetition Covenants
3
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 49.62.020 – Noncompetition Covenants
4
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 49.62.030 – Noncompetition Covenants
5
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 49.62.070 – Noncompetition Covenants
6
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. Minimum Wage
7
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes
8
Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule