HB1155 would substantially restrict the use of noncompetition agreements in Washington and clarify what counts as a nonsolicitation agreement. The bill defines noncompete covenants broadly to include provisions that directly or indirectly bar a worker, independent contractor, or performer from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, business, or performance, and it expressly excludes certain agreements such as confidentiality clauses, trade secret protections, and some business-sale covenants. It also narrows nonsolicitation agreements so they cover only limits on soliciting employees or customers after termination, not broader restrictions on doing business with customers.
The bill makes most noncompete covenants void and unenforceable unless specific conditions are met, including advance written disclosure, independent consideration for post-hire agreements, and earnings thresholds. It also creates a presumption that noncompetes lasting more than 18 months after termination are unreasonable, requires notice to current and former workers that existing noncompetes are void and unenforceable, and authorizes enforcement actions by the attorney general and aggrieved individuals. Remedies include actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus attorney fees and costs, and the bill repeals several existing statutes related to noncompetes, including provisions for broadcasting employees and independent contractors.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant: it rewrites Washington’s framework for restrictive employment covenants, displacing conflicting tort, restitutionary, and contract doctrines to the extent they relate to employee and independent contractor competition restrictions. It also applies retroactively to proceedings commenced on or after the effective date, while limiting new claims based on violations occurring before that date. In practical terms, employers would face tighter limits on enforcing noncompetes, while workers and contractors would gain stronger mobility and bargaining protections.
Overall sentiment in the legislative record appears favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced out of the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee unanimously, then passed the House and Senate with clear majorities, though each chamber recorded substantial opposition on final passage. That pattern suggests broad support for curbing noncompetes and promoting workforce mobility, alongside meaningful concern about the bill’s reach and its effect on employer protections.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the ban, the retroactive application, the 18-month reasonableness presumption, and the penalties for attempted enforcement or partial enforcement. Employers and business groups would likely object that the bill limits legitimate protection of goodwill, trade secrets, and investment in employees, while worker advocates would support the bill as a way to reduce barriers to job switching, entrepreneurship, and independent contracting. The carve-outs for confidentiality, trade secrets, business sales, and franchise agreements indicate an effort to preserve some traditional business protections while sharply limiting employment-based restraints.
HB1155 would amend Washington’s restrictive covenant statutes to make most noncompetition agreements void and unenforceable, while redefining and narrowing nonsolicitation agreements. It repeals existing provisions tied to noncompetes, including special rules for broadcasting industry employees and independent contractors, and it overrides conflicting state common-law doctrines to the extent they govern employee and contractor competition restraints. The bill also creates new notice, enforcement, and penalty provisions that would apply to employers, workers, independent contractors, and certain performers.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum in the Legislature, with unanimous committee approval in the House and strong but not overwhelming floor passage in both chambers. At the same time, the recorded nays on final passage in the House and Senate show that the proposal was controversial and drew substantial opposition. The overall tone suggests support for workforce mobility and anti-noncompete reform, tempered by concerns about business interests and contract enforcement.
The central dispute is between supporters who view noncompetes as harmful restraints on labor mobility and opponents who see them as legitimate tools to protect goodwill, investments, and confidential business interests. Likely flashpoints include the bill’s broad definition of noncompete covenants, the presumption against agreements longer than 18 months, retroactive application to existing disputes, and the statutory penalty and fee-shifting provisions for attempted enforcement. Employers are also likely to focus on the bill’s limits on partial enforcement and its requirement to notify workers that existing noncompetes are void.