An important order has been issued in the Freedom Vans case, interpreting RCW 49.62.070 in a way that significantly protects low-wage employees.
Since 2022, Emery | Reddy, PC has been representing the class in David v. Freedom Vans LLC, which regards the validity of noncompete agreements in the state of Washington. Jeremy David and Mark Springer were both hired at Freedom Vans LLC — a company that specializes in the conversion of vans into livable spaces — at less than twice the state’s minimum wage and on the condition that they sign a non-compete agreement.
A non-compete agreement (NCA) is a contract sometimes required by employers that binds new hires to that specific job or position in the industry. Some NCAs extend past termination of employment, restricting workers from working for competitors for sometimes years after leaving their employer. The intent of non-compete agreements is supposedly to prevent unfair competition within industries by the sharing of trade secrets or acquired skills; however, many employers in Washington state have begun using non-competes to restrict low-wage workers from earning a livable wage.
In 2020, the Court ruled that companies could no longer enforce non-compete agreements for employees who made below a certain wage. Despite the ruling, many employers continued this bad business practice and have stretched definitions to slide by the law. David and Springer came to Emery | Reddy to change the way non-competes work in Washington.
A ruling from the Washington state Supreme Court on January 23, 2025, broadly ensures that employees earning less than twice the state minimum wage are safeguarded from unreasonable restrictions on supplemental employment. The court narrowly allowed employers to impose restrictions that align with the common law duty of loyalty, but rejected an overly broad non-compete agreement that would have prevented employees from assisting competitors in any way.
This decision marks a huge step forward in Employment Law by reaffirming that employers cannot impose restrictions that unfairly limit workers’ ability to earn a living, particularly for those in lower-wage jobs. The ruling represents a stronger legal stance against overly restrictive non-competes and reinforces workers’ rights to seek additional opportunities and protect their livelihoods.
The case has now been remanded to the Superior Court to further assess whether the non-compete agreement in question is reasonable and enforceable under RCW 49.62.070. Stay tuned for further updates on the progress of non-compete laws and what Emery | Reddy is doing to make them fair for workers everywhere.
If you question if you have an illegal non-compete agreement, call Emery | Reddy to speak with an experienced Intake Specialist to learn how we may be able to help.
Whether you’ve been injured on the job, subjected to mistreatment in the workplace, or affected by a privacy breach, our expert attorneys are here to help.
