Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Washington?
Today, only narrowly — and not for long. Washington's Noncompetition Covenants Act, chapter 49.62 RCW, makes an employee non-compete void unless the employer clears every statutory condition, including an earnings threshold that exceeds $126,858.83 for 2026. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. A near-total ban on all non-competition covenants then takes effect on June 30, 2027. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The governing statute is RCW 49.62.020. It does not balance reasonableness the way the common law does; it lists conditions, and a covenant that misses any one of them is void and unenforceable as a matter of law. The conditions include a timely written disclosure, independent consideration for any post-hire covenant, an earnings threshold, and layoff compensation, with a separate eighteen-month outer limit on duration .
Two dates frame everything below. Covenants entered into now are governed by chapter 49.62 RCW as amended by Substitute Senate Bill 5935, effective June 6, 2024 . On June 30, 2027, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155 replaces that conditional regime with a near-total ban that voids non-competes regardless of income and adds an employer notice duty. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020 makes an employee non-compete void unless the employer satisfies the statutory conditions, including the earnings threshold.
Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year.
See RCW 49.62.020(1)(b).
RCW 49.62.020(1) makes an employee non-compete void unless the employer satisfies each condition: timely written disclosure, independent consideration for a post-hire covenant, the earnings threshold, and layoff compensation.
(1) A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable: (a)(i) Unless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer of employment and, if the agreement becomes enforceable only at a later date due to changes in the employee's compensation, the employer specifically discloses that the agreement may be enforceable against the employee in the future; or (ii) If the covenant is entered into after the commencement of employment, unless the employer provides independent consideration for the covenant; (b) Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year. This dollar amount must be adjusted annually in accordance with RCW 49.62.040 ; (c) If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.
See RCW 49.62.020(1).
The Department of Labor & Industries sets the inflation-adjusted thresholds, which reach $126,858.83 for employees and $317,147.09 for independent contractors in 2026.
Employees $116,593.18 $120,559.99 $123,394.17 $126,858.83 Independent Contractors $291,482.95 $301,399.98 $308,485.43 $317,147.09
See Wash. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Non-Compete Agreements (earnings thresholds, 2026).
ESHB 1155 states the legislature's intent to ban non-competition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses.
The legislature hereby intends to ban noncompetition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 1(3).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
Substitute Senate Bill 5935 amended chapter 49.62 RCW effective in 2024 and is the version that governs covenants entered into now.
AN ACT Relating to noncompetition covenants
See Substitute Senate Bill 5935, ch. 36, Laws of 2024.
When does a Washington employee earn enough to be bound by a non-compete?
Only when annualized earnings exceed the inflation-adjusted threshold, which is $126,858.83 for 2026. The statutory floor is $100,000, but RCW 49.62.040 requires the Department of Labor & Industries to raise it each year for inflation. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Earnings are measured from the party seeking enforcement and annualized as of the earlier of the date enforcement is sought or the date of separation . Because the figure is reset annually, the controlling number is the one in effect when the covenant is tested, not the $100,000 base written into the statute. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The threshold is a floor, not a safe harbor. Clearing $126,858.83 only removes one of several independent grounds for voiding a covenant — the disclosure, consideration, layoff-pay, and duration rules below still apply, and after June 30, 2027 the threshold disappears entirely under the new ban. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020(1)(b) voids an employee non-compete unless annualized earnings exceed the statutory threshold, adjusted under RCW 49.62.040.
Unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year. This dollar amount must be adjusted annually in accordance with RCW 49.62.040
See RCW 49.62.020(1)(b).
RCW 49.62.040 directs that the earnings thresholds be adjusted annually for inflation.
The dollar amounts specified in RCW 49.62.020 and 49.62.030 must be adjusted annually for inflation.
See RCW 49.62.040.
RCW 49.62.010 defines earnings as W-2 box-one compensation annualized as of the earlier of the date enforcement is sought or the date of separation.
annualized and calculated as of the earlier of the date enforcement of the noncompetition covenant is sought or the date of separation from employment
See RCW 49.62.010(1).
The Department of Labor & Industries sets the inflation-adjusted thresholds, which reach $126,858.83 for employees and $317,147.09 for independent contractors in 2026.
Employees $116,593.18 $120,559.99 $123,394.17 $126,858.83 Independent Contractors $291,482.95 $301,399.98 $308,485.43 $317,147.09
See Wash. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Non-Compete Agreements (earnings thresholds, 2026).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027, after which the earnings thresholds no longer matter.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
Can a Washington independent contractor be bound by a non-compete?
Only at a much higher earnings level — over $317,147.09 for 2026, against a $250,000 statutory base — and a performer's non-compete is capped at three calendar days. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
RCW 49.62.030 sets a separate, higher threshold for independent contractors, adjusted annually under RCW 49.62.040 just like the employee figure. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. It also includes an unusual rule for live entertainment: a covenant between a performer and a performance space cannot exceed three calendar days .
Both of these rules are temporary. ESHB 1155 repeals RCW 49.62.030 outright effective June 30, 2027, after which an independent contractor's non-compete is void regardless of earnings — the same near-total ban that applies to employees .
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.030 voids a non-compete against an independent contractor unless earnings exceed the higher statutory threshold.
A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor unless the independent contractor's earnings from the party seeking enforcement exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars per year.
See RCW 49.62.030(1).
RCW 49.62.030(2) caps a performer's non-compete with a performance space at three calendar days.
The duration of a noncompetition covenant between a performer and a performance space, or a third party scheduling the performer for a performance space, must not exceed three calendar days.
See RCW 49.62.030(2).
ESHB 1155 repeals RCW 49.62.030 — the independent-contractor threshold and the three-day performer cap — effective June 30, 2027.
The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed: (1) RCW 49.62.030 (When void and unenforceable against independent contractors)
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 8.
The Department of Labor & Industries sets the inflation-adjusted thresholds, which reach $126,858.83 for employees and $317,147.09 for independent contractors in 2026.
Employees $116,593.18 $120,559.99 $123,394.17 $126,858.83 Independent Contractors $291,482.95 $301,399.98 $308,485.43 $317,147.09
See Wash. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Non-Compete Agreements (earnings thresholds, 2026).
What must a Washington employer do to make a non-compete valid at signing?
Disclose the covenant in writing by the time the worker accepts the offer, and give independent consideration for any covenant signed after employment starts. Continued employment alone is not enough. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
RCW 49.62.020 voids a non-compete unless the employer discloses its terms in writing no later than the time of the worker's initial oral or written acceptance of the offer of employment; a covenant produced later, in an onboarding packet, comes too late . For a covenant entered into after employment begins, the employer must provide independent consideration .
That independent-consideration requirement codifies Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., where the Washington Supreme Court held that a non-compete signed after hire is validly formed only with independent consideration and that simply keeping an existing at-will employee on the payroll does not count. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
A restrictive covenant a worker signs after employment has already commenced is validly formed only where it is supported by independent consideration given at the time the covenant is reached; continued at-will employment alone is not consideration, so a post-hire covenant backed only by keeping an existing worker on the payroll is unsupported and unenforceable. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. Identifiable new value given specifically in exchange for the covenant — a signing or retention bonus, an equity grant, or a promotion — is what carries a post-hire covenant across that line, and a placeholder left unfilled leaves the covenant resting on nothing the statute recognizes.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)(i) voids a non-compete unless the employer discloses its terms in writing by the time the worker accepts the offer.
Unless the employer discloses the terms of the covenant in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the initial oral or written acceptance of the offer of employment
See RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)(i).
RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)(ii) voids a post-hire non-compete unless the employer provides independent consideration.
If the covenant is entered into after the commencement of employment, unless the employer provides independent consideration for the covenant
See RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)(ii).
Labriola holds that a non-compete entered into after employment begins is validly formed only with independent consideration.
A noncompete agreement entered into after employment has commenced is validly formed only when there is independent consideration at the time the agreement is reached.
See Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 828 (2004).
Labriola holds that continued employment did not serve as consideration for a post-hire non-compete.
We hold that continued employment in this case did not serve as consideration by Employer in exchange for Employee's promise not to compete.
See Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 828 (2004).
Can a laid-off Washington employee be held to a non-compete?
Only if the employer pays for it. A covenant against a worker terminated by layoff is void unless the employer pays compensation equal to the worker's base salary for the enforcement period, offset by what the worker earns elsewhere .
This is Washington's garden-leave rule. An employer that lays a worker off cannot also enforce the non-compete for free; it must keep paying base salary during the restricted period, minus any compensation the former employee earns through subsequent employment .
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020(1)(c) voids a non-compete against a laid-off worker unless the employer pays base-salary compensation during the enforcement period, offset by subsequent earnings.
If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary at the time of termination for the period of enforcement minus compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.
See RCW 49.62.020(1)(c).
How long can a Washington non-compete last?
Eighteen months is the practical ceiling. A court or arbitrator must presume that any non-compete longer than eighteen months after termination is unreasonable and unenforceable, and only clear and convincing evidence can rebut that presumption .
The presumption shifts the burden onto the employer: to enforce a covenant longer than eighteen months, the party seeking enforcement must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the longer term is necessary to protect its business or goodwill .
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020(2) presumes any non-compete longer than eighteen months unreasonable, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence.
A court or arbitrator must presume that any noncompetition covenant with a duration exceeding eighteen months after termination of employment is unreasonable and unenforceable. A party seeking enforcement may rebut the presumption by proving by clear and convincing evidence that a duration longer than eighteen months is necessary to protect the party's business or goodwill.
See RCW 49.62.020(2).
What agreements count as non-competes under Washington law?
A non-competition covenant is any agreement that restrains a worker from a lawful trade, and — since 2024 — any agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits accepting or transacting business with a customer. Confidentiality agreements, trade-secret covenants, qualifying sale-of-business covenants, and franchise-sale covenants are carved out. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
The label on the document does not control. RCW 49.62.010 defines a non-competition covenant to include every written or oral covenant restraining a worker from a lawful profession, trade, or business . Substitute Senate Bill 5935 then expanded the definition in 2024 to capture agreements that directly or indirectly prohibit the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer — so a no-business-with-customer clause is now a non-compete, subject to all the same conditions .
The statute carves out several covenants that are not non-competes: a nonsolicitation agreement, a confidentiality agreement, a covenant protecting trade secrets or inventions, a sale-of-business covenant where the signer holds at least one percent of the business, and a qualifying franchise covenant .
A customer non-acceptance or no-business clause is not a safe substitute for a non-solicit. Because the 2024 amendment treats any agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits accepting or transacting business with a customer as a non-compete, drafting around the threshold by forbidding the customer relationship instead of the solicitation pulls the clause back inside RCW 49.62.020. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.010(4) defines a non-competition covenant to include every covenant restraining a worker from a lawful profession, trade, or business.
"Noncompetition covenant" includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract by which an employee or independent contractor is prohibited or restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.
See RCW 49.62.010(4).
RCW 49.62.010(4) treats an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits accepting or transacting business with a customer as a non-competition covenant.
A "noncompetition covenant" also includes an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer.
See RCW 49.62.010(4).
RCW 49.62.010(4) excludes nonsolicitation, confidentiality, trade-secret, qualifying sale-of-business (one percent or more), and qualifying franchise covenants from the definition of non-competition covenant.
A "noncompetition covenant" does not include: (a) A nonsolicitation agreement; (b) a confidentiality agreement; (c) a covenant prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions; (d) a covenant entered into by a person purchasing or selling the goodwill of a business or otherwise acquiring or disposing of an ownership interest, but only if the person signing the covenant purchases, sells, acquires, or disposes of an interest representing one percent or more of the business; or (e) a covenant entered into by a franchisee when the franchise sale complies with RCW 19.100.020 (1).
See RCW 49.62.010(4).
Are non-solicitation and franchise no-poach clauses still allowed in Washington?
Yes, but narrowly. A nonsolicitation agreement is exempt from the Act only if it is limited to soliciting the employer's employees or its current customers; and a franchisor cannot bar a franchisee from soliciting or hiring another franchisee's or the franchisor's employees. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
The statutory definition of a nonsolicitation agreement is narrow: it reaches only solicitation, upon termination, of the employer's employees or of any current customer of the employer . A clause that goes beyond solicitation — for example, prohibiting the former worker from accepting business a customer brings to them — is treated as a non-compete instead .
Washington also restricts franchise no-poach arrangements directly: a franchisor may not restrain a franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees of another franchisee of the same franchisor or of the franchisor itself .
Non-solicitation agreements survive the 2027 ban, but on narrower terms. Effective June 30, 2027, ESHB 1155 rewrites the definition to require that the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with the customer and that the restriction last no longer than eighteen months .
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.010(5) defines a nonsolicitation agreement narrowly, limited to soliciting the employer's employees or current customers.
"Nonsolicitation agreement" means an agreement between an employer and employee that prohibits solicitation by an employee, upon termination of employment: (a) Of any employee of the employer to leave the employer; or (b) of any current customer of the employer to cease or reduce the extent to which it is doing business with the employer.
See RCW 49.62.010(5).
ESHB 1155 narrows the nonsolicitation definition effective June 30, 2027, requiring a substantially developed direct customer relationship and an eighteen-month maximum.
if the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with the customer, patient, client, or prospect through the employee's work for the employer and the prohibition expires no later than 18 months following termination of employment
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 3.
RCW 49.62.010(4) treats an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits accepting or transacting business with a customer as a non-competition covenant, not a nonsolicitation agreement.
A "noncompetition covenant" also includes an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer.
See RCW 49.62.010(4).
RCW 49.62.060 bars a franchisor from restraining a franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees of another franchisee of the same franchisor or of the franchisor itself.
No franchisor may restrict, restrain, or prohibit in any way a franchisee from soliciting or hiring any employee of a franchisee of the same franchisor. (2) No franchisor may restrict, restrain, or prohibit in any way a franchisee from soliciting or hiring any employee of the franchisor.
See RCW 49.62.060(1)-(2).
Can a Washington employer stop a low-wage employee from taking a second job?
No. An employer may not prohibit an employee earning less than twice the state minimum wage from taking an additional job, and the Washington Supreme Court has held that the duty-of-loyalty exception to that rule must be construed narrowly. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
RCW 49.62.070 bars an employer from restraining an employee earning less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from supplementing their income with another job, contract work, or self-employment, subject only to narrow safety and scheduling exceptions and the common-law duty of loyalty .
In David v. Freedom Vans, LLC (2025), the court applied that protection to strike down a blanket non-compete and refused to read the duty-of-loyalty exception broadly, warning that an expansive reading would render the chapter's worker protections meaningless. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.070 bars an employer from restraining an employee earning less than twice the state minimum wage from taking an additional job.
an employer may not restrict, restrain, or prohibit an employee earning less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed.
See RCW 49.62.070(1).
David v. Freedom Vans holds that employers paying less than twice the minimum wage cannot prohibit low-wage employees from working second jobs.
In Washington, employers who pay their employees less than twice the minimum wage cannot prohibit them from working second jobs, subject to a few, limited exceptions.
See David v. Freedom Vans, LLC, 4 Wn.3d 242 (2025).
David v. Freedom Vans declines to read the duty-of-loyalty exception broadly, because doing so would render the chapter 49.62 RCW protections meaningless.
We decline to adopt this expansive view of the duty of loyalty, as it would render the employee protections in chapter 49.62 RCW meaningless and would require us to ignore the directive in the statute itself that the exceptions be construed narrowly.
See David v. Freedom Vans, LLC, 4 Wn.3d 242 (2025).
Can an out-of-state choice-of-law or venue clause govern a Washington worker's non-compete?
No. For a Washington-based worker, a provision requiring out-of-state adjudication, depriving the worker of the Act's protections, or applying another state's law is void and unenforceable .
RCW 49.62.050 forecloses the standard workaround of routing a Washington worker's covenant through a more employer-friendly state. A venue clause forcing adjudication elsewhere, a clause stripping the chapter's protections, and a choice-of-law clause applying non-Washington substantive law are each independently void as to a Washington-based worker .
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.050 voids out-of-state venue, protection-stripping, and non-Washington choice-of-law provisions for a Washington-based worker.
A provision in a noncompetition covenant signed by an employee or independent contractor who is Washington-based is void and unenforceable: (1) If the covenant requires the employee or independent contractor to adjudicate a noncompetition covenant outside of this state; (2) To the extent it deprives the employee or independent contractor of the protections or benefits of this chapter; or (3) If it allows or requires the application of choice of law principles or the substantive law of any jurisdiction other than Washington state.
See RCW 49.62.050.
What are the penalties for an unenforceable Washington non-compete?
If a court or arbitrator finds that a Washington non-compete violates chapter 49.62 RCW, the violator must pay the aggrieved worker the greater of actual damages or $5,000, plus fees, and in any proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027, the same penalty applies when a court only partially enforces or rewrites the covenant. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. The attorney general may also pursue relief .
If a court or arbitrator finds a covenant violates the chapter, the violator must pay the aggrieved person the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs . Critically, in a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027, the same penalty applies when a court reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces the covenant — so the party seeking enforcement cannot rely on judicial blue-penciling to escape liability. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
For proceedings commenced on or after June 30, 2027, section 5 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155 removes the separate reformation penalty by deleting RCW 49.62.080(3) effective that date. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. Section 7 amends RCW 49.62.100 so that a legal proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027 is governed by the chapter as it read before that date, which keeps the reformation penalty available in that proceeding .
A savings clause that relies on a court to trim an overbroad covenant leaves the party seeking enforcement owing the penalty and fees whenever the court reforms or only partially enforces that covenant in a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.080(2) requires a violator to pay the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus fees and costs.
If a court or arbitrator determines that a noncompetition covenant violates this chapter, the violator must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the proceeding.
See RCW 49.62.080(2).
RCW 49.62.080(3) applies the same penalty when a court reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces a non-compete.
If a court or arbitrator reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces any noncompetition covenant, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the proceeding.
See RCW 49.62.080(3).
RCW 49.62.080(1) authorizes the attorney general to pursue any and all relief for a violation of the chapter.
Upon a violation of this chapter, the attorney general, on behalf of a person or persons, may pursue any and all relief.
See RCW 49.62.080(1).
Section 5 of ESHB 1155 deletes subsection (3), the reformation penalty, from RCW 49.62.080. The session law marks deleted text by enclosing it in double parentheses and striking it through; the quote opens with that marker.
(( (3) If a court or arbitrator reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces any noncompetition covenant, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the proceeding.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 5 (amending RCW 49.62.080).
The version of RCW 49.62.080 that takes effect June 30, 2027, as amended by ESHB 1155 § 5, provides relief only under subsection (2); it no longer contains the subsection (3) reformation penalty.
A person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may bring a cause of action to pursue any and all relief provided for in subsection (2) of this section.
See RCW 49.62.080(1) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
Section 7 of ESHB 1155 amends RCW 49.62.100 so that legal proceedings commenced before June 30, 2027 remain governed by chapter 49.62 RCW as it read before that date.
Legal proceedings commenced before the effective date of this section will be governed by this chapter as amended prior to the effective date of this section.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 7(2) (amending RCW 49.62.100).
Are covenants outside the Act judged by a reasonableness test in Washington?
Yes: in a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027, Washington courts judge a covenant that chapter 49.62 RCW does not void under a three-factor reasonableness test; in a later proceeding every noncompetition covenant is void regardless of when it was entered into, and the amended statute does not say whether courts will keep applying that test to covenants outside the ban .
In its current version, the Act expressly does not revoke or impede the development of the common law . So a covenant that clears the statutory conditions — or one the statute does not reach — is still tested for reasonableness. Under Perry v. Moran, that test weighs three factors: whether the restraint is necessary to protect the employer's business or goodwill, whether it imposes a greater restraint than reasonably necessary, and the degree of injury to the public . Emerick v. Cardiac Study Center, Inc. confirms the modern formulation that a covenant is enforceable if reasonable .
That savings clause has an end date. Section 6 of ESHB 1155 deletes RCW 49.62.090(2) effective June 30, 2027. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. From that date, RCW 49.62.090 has two subsections. Subsection (1) says the chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, contract, and other Washington law pertaining to liability for competition by employees or independent contractors with their employers or principals, as appropriate. Subsection (2) says the chapter does not amend or modify chapter 19.108 RCW, Washington's trade secrets act . After that date, RCW 49.62.090 no longer expressly preserves the common law, amended subsection (1) displaces only conflicting law, and the statute does not say whether courts will keep applying the common-law reasonableness analysis to covenants outside the ban. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. Under section 7, a legal proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027 is governed by the chapter as it read before that date, so the savings clause still applies in that proceeding . Under section 7(1), the amended RCW 49.62.020 and 49.62.090 apply to every proceeding commenced on or after June 30, 2027, regardless of when the cause of action arose . In such a proceeding, every noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable regardless of when the parties entered into it, so a reasonableness showing cannot save a covenant the ban covers. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
A customer non-solicit drafted to last longer than 18 months after termination, or to reach customers with whom the employee neither established nor substantially developed a direct relationship, falls outside the nonsolicitation-agreement exclusion in a proceeding commenced on or after June 30, 2027. The clause is then a noncompetition covenant if it restrains the employee from engaging in a lawful business, and it is void and unenforceable. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 5 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
ESHB 1155 bans non-competition covenants for all Washington-based workers, displacing the reasonableness analysis for covered non-competes after June 30, 2027.
The legislature hereby intends to ban noncompetition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 1(3).
RCW 49.62.090(2), in the version effective until June 30, 2027, preserves the common law except as otherwise provided in the chapter.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, this chapter does not revoke, modify, or impede the development of the common law.
See RCW 49.62.090(2).
Section 6 of ESHB 1155 deletes subsection (2), the common-law savings clause, from RCW 49.62.090. The session law marks deleted text by enclosing it in double parentheses and striking it through; the quote opens with that marker.
(( (2) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, this chapter does not revoke, modify, or impede the development of the common law.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 6 (amending RCW 49.62.090).
The version of RCW 49.62.090 that takes effect June 30, 2027, as amended by ESHB 1155 § 6, keeps the displacement rule and the chapter 19.108 RCW carve-out and no longer contains the common-law savings clause.
Subject to subsection (2) of this section, this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, contract, including contract principles relating to discharge by assent or alteration, and other laws of this state pertaining to liability for competition by employees or independent contractors with their employers or principals, as appropriate. (2) This chapter does not amend or modify chapter 19.108 RCW.
See RCW 49.62.090(1)-(2) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
Section 7 of ESHB 1155 amends RCW 49.62.100 so that legal proceedings commenced before June 30, 2027 remain governed by chapter 49.62 RCW as it read before that date.
Legal proceedings commenced before the effective date of this section will be governed by this chapter as amended prior to the effective date of this section.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 7(2) (amending RCW 49.62.100).
Section 7 of ESHB 1155 amends RCW 49.62.100 so that the amended RCW 49.62.010, 49.62.020, 49.62.080, and 49.62.090 apply to all proceedings commenced on or after June 30, 2027, regardless of when the cause of action arose.
RCW 49.62.010, 49.62.020, 49.62.080, and 49.62.090 apply to all proceedings commenced on or after the effective date of this section, regardless of when the cause of action arose.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 7(1) (amending RCW 49.62.100).
The version of RCW 49.62.020 that takes effect June 30, 2027, as amended by ESHB 1155 § 4, makes every noncompetition covenant void and unenforceable from that date, regardless of when it was entered into.
Beginning on June 30, 2027, all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant.
See RCW 49.62.020(1) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
In the version of RCW 49.62.010 that takes effect June 30, 2027, a noncompetition covenant includes every covenant that prohibits or restrains an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.
"Noncompetition covenant" includes every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract that prohibits or restrains an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.
See RCW 49.62.010(3)(a) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
The version of RCW 49.62.010 that takes effect June 30, 2027 excludes from the noncompetition-covenant definition, among others, nonsolicitation agreements and qualifying sale-of-business covenants.
A "noncompetition covenant" does not include: (i) A nonsolicitation agreement; (ii) a confidentiality agreement; (iii) a covenant prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions; (iv) a covenant entered into by a person purchasing or selling the goodwill of a business or otherwise acquiring or disposing of an ownership interest, but only if the person signing the covenant purchases, sells, acquires, or disposes of an ownership interest representing one percent or more of the business;
See RCW 49.62.010(3)(e)(i)-(iv) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
In the version of RCW 49.62.010 that takes effect June 30, 2027, a customer nonsolicitation agreement qualifies only if the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with the customer and the prohibition expires no later than 18 months after termination.
if the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with the customer, patient, client, or prospect through the employee's work for the employer and the prohibition expires no later than 18 months following termination of employment. An agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer, patient, or client is not a "nonsolicitation agreement."
See RCW 49.62.010(4) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
Perry v. Moran sets Washington's three-factor reasonableness test for restrictive covenants.
Whether a covenant is reasonable involves a consideration of three factors: (1) whether restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or goodwill of the employer, (2) whether it imposes upon the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to secure the employer's business or goodwill, and (3) whether the degree of injury to the public is such loss of the service and skill of the employee as to warrant nonenforcement of the covenant.
See Perry v. Moran, 109 Wn.2d 691 (1987).
Emerick states the modern rule that Washington non-compete covenants are enforceable if reasonable and lawful.
Under Washington law, noncompete covenants are enforceable if they are reasonable and lawful.
See Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., 189 Wn. App. 711 (2015).
Will a Washington court rewrite or partially enforce an overbroad non-compete?
In a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027, a court can reform an overbroad covenant, but doing so triggers the statutory penalty. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. Washington courts have long enforced a covenant only to the extent it is reasonable, yet in a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62.080 makes the party seeking enforcement pay the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 penalty, plus fees, whenever a court reforms or partially enforces one. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 4 sources in this group.
Washington follows the reasonable-extent rule from Wood v. May: a court of equity enforces a restraint against a former employee only to the extent it is reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest . Emerick applies that to modern covenants, holding that when some terms are unreasonable the entire covenant does not fail — the court may modify it .
But under the current statute, reformation is not free. RCW 49.62.080 imposes the $5,000 penalty (or greater actual damages) plus fees whenever a court reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces a covenant . Section 5 of ESHB 1155 deletes that penalty effective June 30, 2027. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group. Under section 7, a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027 is governed by the chapter as it read before that date, so a court that reforms a covenant in that proceeding still triggers the penalty . Once the amended chapter governs, from June 30, 2027, it is a violation for an employer to enforce or attempt to enforce any non-competition covenant On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.; a proceeding commenced before that date remains under prior law . For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement drafted to these rules, the Washington non-compete reviewer checklist walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
An overbroad covenant drafted to rely on judicial narrowing exposes the party seeking enforcement to the statutory penalty and fees if a court reforms or only partially enforces it in a proceeding commenced before June 30, 2027. The restraint that holds without that cost is the one already drawn to the minimum scope, duration, and geography the legitimate interest requires. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 3 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
Wood v. May holds that equity enforces a restraint against a former employee only to the extent reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
It is well settled that a court of equity will use its power to enforce a restriction against a former employee's competition only to the extent that such restriction is reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer.
See Wood v. May, 73 Wn.2d 307 (1968).
Emerick holds that when certain terms of a covenant are unreasonable, the entire covenant does not fail and a court may modify it.
If the trial court determines that certain terms of the covenant are unreasonable—such as the geographic and temporal scope of the restraint—the entire covenant does not fail.
See Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., 189 Wn. App. 711 (2015).
RCW 49.62.080(3) imposes the $5,000 penalty whenever a court reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces a non-compete.
If a court or arbitrator reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces any noncompetition covenant, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the proceeding.
See RCW 49.62.080(3).
Section 5 of ESHB 1155 deletes subsection (3), the reformation penalty, from RCW 49.62.080. The session law marks deleted text by enclosing it in double parentheses and striking it through; the quote opens with that marker.
(( (3) If a court or arbitrator reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces any noncompetition covenant, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the proceeding.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 5 (amending RCW 49.62.080).
The version of RCW 49.62.080 that takes effect June 30, 2027, as amended by ESHB 1155 § 5, provides relief only under subsection (2); it no longer contains the subsection (3) reformation penalty.
A person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may bring a cause of action to pursue any and all relief provided for in subsection (2) of this section.
See RCW 49.62.080(1) (effective June 30, 2027) (as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
Section 7 of ESHB 1155 amends RCW 49.62.100 so that legal proceedings commenced before June 30, 2027 remain governed by chapter 49.62 RCW as it read before that date.
Legal proceedings commenced before the effective date of this section will be governed by this chapter as amended prior to the effective date of this section.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 7(2) (amending RCW 49.62.100).
ESHB 1155 makes it a violation to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce a non-compete, to represent that a worker is subject to one, or to enter into one.
It is a violation of this chapter for an employer to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce against an employee or worker any noncompetition covenant, to represent that the employee or worker is subject to a noncompetition covenant, or to enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompetition covenant with an employee or worker.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 4(2).
Does a Washington non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?
This is an open question, and the statute's structure cuts against automatic extension. Chapter 49.62 RCW does not address tolling or extending the restricted period during a breach or while litigation is pending, and the eighteen-month presumption caps duration regardless. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Chapter 49.62 RCW does not address tolling or extension-on-breach clauses, and no controlling Washington decision squarely resolves whether such a clause is enforceable. Two features of Washington law point toward caution. First, RCW 49.62.020 presumes any covenant longer than eighteen months unreasonable, so a tolling clause that pushes enforcement past that window invites the presumption . Second, Wood v. May limits a court to enforcing a restraint only to its reasonable extent, which sits uneasily with a clause that mechanically lengthens the restriction .
Open question: Washington law is unsettled on whether a clause extending a non-compete during a period of breach or litigation is enforceable. Do not assume a court will toll or extend an expired Washington covenant, especially where the extension would carry the total restriction past eighteen months. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
RCW 49.62.020(2) presumes any non-compete longer than eighteen months unreasonable, which constrains any tolling-based extension.
A court or arbitrator must presume that any noncompetition covenant with a duration exceeding eighteen months after termination of employment is unreasonable and unenforceable.
See RCW 49.62.020(2).
Wood v. May limits enforcement to the reasonable extent of a restraint, which cuts against a clause mechanically extending the restricted period.
It is well settled that a court of equity will use its power to enforce a restriction against a former employee's competition only to the extent that such restriction is reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer.
See Wood v. May, 73 Wn.2d 307 (1968).
What changes when Washington's near-total non-compete ban takes effect on June 30, 2027?
Almost everything. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155 makes all non-competition covenants void regardless of income, turns enforcing or even threatening to enforce one into a violation, requires employers to notify affected workers by October 1, 2027, and repeals the income thresholds. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 4 sources in this group.
Signed on March 23, 2026 and effective June 30, 2027, ESHB 1155 (chapter 149, Laws of 2026) converts Washington from a conditional-enforceability state into a near-total ban. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group. Several changes matter for employers planning ahead:
- Enforcement itself becomes unlawful. It is a violation to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce a non-compete, to represent that a worker is subject to one, or to enter into one .
- Affirmative notice duty. By October 1, 2027, employers must make reasonable efforts to tell current and former workers whose covenant is still within its time period that it is void .
- Forfeiture and clawback clauses are captured. The expanded definition reaches any provision requiring a worker to return, repay, or forfeit compensation as a consequence of competing .
- The thresholds disappear. Section 4 of ESHB 1155 rewrites RCW 49.62.020 so that all non-competes are void regardless of when they were signed, which removes the employee earnings threshold along with the other conditions in that section . Section 8 separately repeals the independent-contractor threshold (RCW 49.62.030), the annual-adjustment section (RCW 49.62.040), and the broadcasting-industry rule (RCW 49.44.190) .
Start planning now, not in 2027. The ban applies regardless of when a covenant was signed and adds an October 1, 2027 notice obligation, so employers should inventory existing Washington covenants and prepare worker notices well before the effective date. Re-verify the enrolled text before acting, because implementing guidance may follow. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Without an inventory of every non-compete the employer has entered into, including each Non-Compete Covenant in agreements like this one, and the date each restricted period ends, an employer risks omitting current or former workers from the written notice it must make reasonable efforts to provide by October 1, 2027, stating that their non-compete is void and unenforceable. On a touch screen, a tap shows all 2 sources in this group.
Sources for this answer
ESHB 1155 states the legislature's intent to ban non-competition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses.
The legislature hereby intends to ban noncompetition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 1(3).
ESHB 1155 takes effect June 30, 2027.
This act takes effect June 30, 2027.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 9.
ESHB 1155 makes it a violation to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce a non-compete, to represent that a worker is subject to one, or to enter into one.
It is a violation of this chapter for an employer to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce against an employee or worker any noncompetition covenant, to represent that the employee or worker is subject to a noncompetition covenant, or to enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompetition covenant with an employee or worker.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 4(2).
ESHB 1155 requires employers, by October 1, 2027, to make reasonable efforts to notify current and former workers whose covenant is still within its time period that it is void.
By October 1, 2027, an employer must make reasonable efforts to provide written notice to all current and former employees and independent contractors whose noncompetition covenant is still within its effective time period, that their noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 4(3).
ESHB 1155 expands the definition of non-competition covenant to capture provisions requiring a worker to return, repay, or forfeit compensation as a consequence of competing.
A "noncompetition covenant" also includes any provision in an agreement that threatens, demands, requires, or otherwise effectuates that an individual return, repay, or forfeit any right, benefit, or compensation, as a consequence of the individual engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 3.
ESHB 1155 repeals the independent-contractor threshold (RCW 49.62.030) and the annual dollar-amount adjustment (RCW 49.62.040), eliminating the income thresholds, and also repeals the broadcasting-industry rule (RCW 49.44.190).
The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed: (1) RCW 49.62.030 (When void and unenforceable against independent contractors) and 2019 c 299 s 4; (2) RCW 49.62.040 (Dollar amounts adjusted) and 2019 c 299 s 5
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 8.
ESHB 1155 voids non-competition covenants regardless of when the parties entered into them, reaching existing agreements.
regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant.
See Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1155, ch. 149, Laws of 2026, § 4(1).
What does federal law require a non-compete or confidentiality agreement in Washington to say about whistleblowers and pay?
An employee confidentiality, non-compete, or invention assignment agreement signed or updated now that governs trade secrets or other confidential information must give the Defend Trade Secrets Act whistleblower-immunity notice, and for employees the National Labor Relations Act covers, Section 7 of that Act protects concerted activity, including joining together over pay and working conditions, that a broad confidentiality clause can restrict. The employer may satisfy the notice duty by cross-referencing a qualifying policy document provided to the employee, but an employer that omits the notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act in an action against an employee who was not given notice.
The notice describes a federal immunity: an individual cannot be held liable under federal or state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal. For an agreement signed or updated now, the duty to give that notice reaches any agreement with an employee that governs trade secrets or other confidential information, whatever else the agreement does.
Section 7 gives employees the National Labor Relations Act covers a statutory right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, including joining together to improve pay and working conditions. For employees the Act covers, the Board's work-rule standard adopted in 2023 makes a rule presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights; an employer can rebut that presumption only by showing a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot serve with a more narrowly tailored rule. The 2023 standard may change, but the Section 7 right it enforces is statutory. State law may add its own requirements for the same clauses.
A form carried over without the immunity notice, or a cross-reference to a reporting policy the employee never received, leaves the confidentiality clause without a valid notice, so the Act's exemplary damages and attorney fees are unavailable against that employee. A Confidential Information definition that sweeps in pay and working conditions with no carve-out exposes the employer to an unfair-labor-practice finding for employees the Act covers.
Sources for this answer
An individual is immune from criminal and civil liability under federal and state trade-secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal.
An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that— (A) is made— (i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1).
An employer must give notice of the trade-secret whistleblower immunity in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
An employer shall provide notice of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A).
An employer complies with the notice requirement by cross-referencing a policy document, provided to the employee, that sets out the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
An employer shall be considered to be in compliance with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A) if the employer provides a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(B).
An employer that does not give the required notice may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees in a trade-secret action against an employee who did not receive it.
If an employer does not comply with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A), the employer may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 1836(b)(3) in an action against an employee to whom notice was not provided.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(C).
Section 7 gives employees the right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, the statutory basis for keeping discussion of pay and working conditions outside confidentiality restrictions.
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
See 29 U.S.C. § 157 (NLRA § 7).
The National Labor Relations Board protects the right of private-sector employees, with or without a union, to join together to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.
Established in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees from unfair labor practices and protects the right of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve wages, benefits and working conditions.
See NLRB Office of Public Affairs, news release of Feb. 21, 2023 (agency mission statement).
Under the work-rule standard the Board adopted in 2023, a rule with a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves a legitimate and substantial business interest it cannot advance with a more narrowly tailored rule.
Under the new standard adopted in Stericycle, the General Counsel must prove that a challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their rights. If the General Counsel does so, then the rule is presumptively unlawful. However, the employer may rebut the presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.
See Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023); NLRB Office of Public Affairs, Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules (Aug. 2, 2023).