A proposed class action lawsuit filed in Washington federal court is bringing renewed attention to state laws that protect low‑wage workers’ right to seek supplemental income. The case alleges that Apple Inc. maintained policies restricting certain Washington employees from holding second jobs or engaging in self‑employment, conduct that may violate Washington’s moonlighting law.
The lawsuit reflects a broader trend of litigation following recent judicial interpretation of Washington statutes designed to protect workers earning less than twice the state minimum wage. As more employers reevaluate restrictive employment policies, the case underscores the growing legal risks associated with blanket bans on outside work.
Washington law prohibits employers from preventing low‑wage workers from holding additional employment or engaging in independent work outside of their primary job. The statute is intended to ensure that workers who earn lower wages maintain the ability to supplement their income, particularly in a high‑cost state like Washington.
Under the law, employers may impose only limited restrictions tied to legitimate conflicts of interest or a worker’s duty of loyalty. Broad or categorical policies that effectively bar second jobs can be unlawful when applied to workers earning less than twice the minimum wage.
In recent years, Washington courts have clarified that these worker protections should be interpreted broadly, while any employer‑imposed restrictions must be narrow, job‑related, and justified by legitimate business concerns.
Allegations in the Apple Class Action Lawsuit
The complaint filed against Apple alleges that the company enforced written and unwritten policies restricting certain Washington employees from engaging in supplemental employment. According to the lawsuit, affected workers were prohibited from taking second jobs, working as independent contractors, or operating their own businesses, even when such work posed no actual conflict with their Apple positions.
The proposed class consists of current and former Apple employees in Washington who earned less than twice the state minimum wage during the relevant period. The complaint asserts that these policies were applied broadly, rather than being tailored to specific conflicts of interest, and that workers suffered financial and non‑financial harm as a result.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages under Washington law, which allows workers to recover either actual damages or a set statutory amount per violation. Depending on class size, the potential exposure could be substantial.
A Growing Wave of Moonlighting and Noncompete Litigation
The Apple case is not an isolated incident. Since Washington’s highest court clarified enforcement standards for restrictive employment policies in 2025, employees have filed multiple lawsuits challenging employer rules that limit outside work.
Retailers and other large employers have faced similar claims alleging that internal codes of conduct, loyalty clauses, or handbook provisions unlawfully restricted supplemental employment. These cases highlight a growing awareness among workers of their rights—and a heightened willingness to challenge employer policies that go beyond what the law permits.
For employers operating in Washington, the rise in litigation serves as a warning that policies built on one‑size‑fits‑all restrictions may create significant legal exposure when applied to low‑wage workers.
Why Moonlighting Restrictions Matter for Workers
For many Washington workers, second jobs or independent work are essential to making ends meet. Housing costs, childcare expenses, and inflation have increased financial pressure on working households across the state. Laws protecting supplemental employment recognize that reality.
When employers impose overly broad restrictions, workers may be forced to choose between compliance and financial stability. Washington’s moonlighting statute seeks to prevent that imbalance by ensuring that lower‑wage employees retain flexibility to pursue lawful work outside of their primary job.
The Apple lawsuit raises important questions about how far employer policies can go—and reinforces that even large, well‑resourced companies must comply with state labor protections.
Emery | Reddy’s Role in Protecting Workers’ Rights
Emery | Reddy, PC represents employees in complex wage‑and‑hour, employment, and worker‑protection matters throughout Washington. The firm has been at the forefront of enforcing state laws designed to protect low‑wage workers from unlawful noncompete and moonlighting restrictions.
Cases like this one reflect our commitment to holding employers accountable when workplace policies cross legal boundaries and harm workers’ economic security.
What Washington Workers Should Know
Employees earning less than twice the Washington state minimum wage have strong legal protections when it comes to second jobs. In many circumstances, employers may not:
- Ban outside employment outright
- Prohibit independent contracting or self‑employment
- Enforce vague or overly broad “loyalty” provisions
- Retaliate against workers for lawful supplemental work
Workers who believe their employer has unlawfully restricted outside employment may have legal options, including participation in class actions or individual claims.
Looking Ahead
As Washington courts continue to shape the boundaries of employer authority, moonlighting and noncompete litigation is likely to remain an active area of employment law. The Apple case reinforces the message that compliance with worker‑protection statutes is not optional—and that employers must adapt their policies to evolving legal standards.
For workers, the lawsuit serves as an important reminder that state law provides meaningful tools to protect income opportunities and economic independence.
