Limiting noncompetition agreements.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 6522 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 6522.
You're tracking SB 6522
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 6522 — Limiting noncompetition agreements.
Last action — Referred to Ways & Means.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The updated version of SB 6522 includes changes that provide greater protections for employees regarding noncompetition agreements. Notably, it raises the minimum salary requirement for enforceable agreements from three times to five times the average weekly wage and requires employers to pay employees during the restriction period. Additionally, it prohibits employers from restricting part-time employees or those earning less than twice the minimum wage from taking additional jobs. These changes aim to enhance workforce mobility and economic opportunity for workers in Washington.
S-4706.1SUBSTITUTES-4139.1SENATE SENATE BILL 6522State of Washington65th Legislature2018 Regular SessionBy Senate Labor & Commerce (originally sponsored by Senators Liias and Fain)READFainAN FIRST TIME 02/02/18.AN ACT Relating to protecting workers from work restrictions;
Further, the legislature finds that agreements limiting competition or hiring are frequently contracts of adhesion that may be unreasonable.NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:(1) For a noncompetition agreement to be enforceable, the employer must disclose the terms of the agreement in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the acceptance of the offer of employment or, if the agreement is entered into after the commencement of employment, the employer must provide independent consideration for the agreement.(2) A noncompetition agreement is unreasonable, and void and unenforceable:(a) If the annual compensation, excluding benefits, of the employee is less than threefive times the average weekly wage as established under RCW 50.04.355 at the time of entering into the contract.(b) If the employee is terminated dueduring to a reductionprobationary inperiod force,or unlesswithout enforcementjust ofcause, theincluding noncompetitiondue agreement includes compensation during the period of enforcement equivalent to thea employee'sreduction fullin salaryforce.(3) during the four quarters of employment with that employer prior to enforcement.(3) A rebuttable presumption is established that a noncompetition agreement is unreasonable and void and unenforceable for any period of time beyond a one year duration.
A party to the agreement may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the duration beyond one year is reasonably necessary to protect the business or goodwill of the party.(4) ATo provisionbe inenforceable, a contract or agreement signed by an employee who primarily resides and works in Washington state is void and unenforceable if it deprives the employee of the substantive protection of Washington law.(5) A noncompetition agreement betweenmust abe performersupported andby a performance"garden space,leave orclause" aunder thirdwhich party scheduling the performer for a performance space, may not restrict the performer from performing in a geographic region for a period longer than three days.(6) A noncompetition agreement between an entity engaging an independent contractor and an independent contractor is void and unenforceable.(7) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this section does not revoke, modify, or impede the development of the common law.(8) This section applies to noncompetition agreements entered into on or after the effective date of this section.NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:An employer mayagrees not restrict, restrain, or prohibit an employee working fewer than forty hours per week or earning less than two hundred percent of the applicable state or local minimum wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed.NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chaptercontinue 49.44 RCW to readpay as follows:The definitions in this section apply throughout sections 1 through 3 of this act unless the contextemployee clearlywages requiresduring otherwise.(1) "Employee" and "employer" have the samerestricted meaningsperiod. as in RCW 49.17.020.(2) "Noncompetition agreement" includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract by which an employee is prohibited or restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.
The amount of the wages shall be based on the average of wages reported to the employment security department for the four quarters prior to the restricted period, prorated to the employer's pay period.
If the employee worked for the employer for less than the entirety of four complete quarters, the average shall be based on the quarters for which the employee worked the entirety of the quarter or quarters.
An employer may not restrict an employee from employment while receiving garden leave if the employment is consistent with a reasonable noncompetition agreement that is consistent with this section.(5) A provision in a contract or agreement signed by an employee who primarily resides and works in the state is void and unenforceable if it requires the employee to adjudicate a noncompetition agreement outside of the state.(6) A provision in a contract or agreement signed by an employee who primarily resides and works in Washington state is void and unenforceable if it deprives the employee of the substantive protection of Washington law.(7) Any enforcement or attempted enforcement of a noncompetition agreement that violates this section, or is overly broad or only partially enforceable, affects the public interest and constitutes a per se unfair or deceptive act or practice under chapter 19.86 RCW.(8) A noncompetition agreement between a performer and a performance space, or a third party scheduling the performer for a performance space, may not restrict the performer from performing in a geographic region for a period longer than three days.(9) A noncompetition agreement between an entity engaging an independent contractor and an independent contractor is void and unenforceable.(10) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this section does not revoke, modify, or impede the development of the common law.(11) This section applies to noncompetition agreements entered into on or after the effective date of this section.NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:An employer may not restrict, restrain, or prohibit an employee working fewer than forty hours per week or earning less than two hundred percent of the applicable state or local minimum wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed.NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:The definitions in this section apply throughout sections 1 through 3 of this act unless the context clearly requires otherwise.(1) "Employee" and "employer" have the same meanings as in RCW 49.17.020.(2) "Noncompetition agreement" includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract by which an employee is prohibited or restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.
View plain text versions (2)
- Bill View text Current html
- Substitute Substitute Bill html
Action History
-
Referred to Ways & Means.
-
Referred to Ways & Means.
-
Minority; do not pass.
-
And refer to Ways & Means.
-
LBRC - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
Minority; do not pass.
-
And refer to Ways & Means.
-
LBRC - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
First reading, referred to Labor & Commerce.
Sponsors
- Fain · Cosponsor
- Marko Liias · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 149 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Marko Liias Democrat
Co-sponsors (1)
- Fain
Not signed on (149)
149 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 149 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 6522?
- SB 6522 is sponsored by Fain and Marko Liias (Democrat).
- What is the current status of SB 6522?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 6522?
- Track SB 6522 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 6522
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 6522
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →