Non-competition agreements, also known as covenants not to compete or restrictive covenants, are employment contracts used by employers to limit the ability of an employee to compete with the employer by stealing customers or trade secrets. Enforceable agreements must strike a balance between protecting the employer’s legitimate business interests from an unfair competitive advantage with the employee’s right to work in a field for which he or she is trained.  In general, courts decide what is considered reasonable or not reasonable by examining the type and size of the business, how long and over what geographic area the restrictions apply and whether adequate consideration, or benefit, was given the employee at the time the agreement was signed.

The Law In Washington

Washington courts have determined that restrictive covenants are enforceable if the terms are reasonable and necessary to protect information or relationships which peculiarly pertain to its operation such as customer contacts and trade secrets. Factors considered when determining reasonableness include the hardship an agreement puts on the former employee, its effect on the general public and the restrictions placed on time, territory and activity of the former employee.


With any contractual arrangement, both parties must be giving and receiving something of value, also known as consideration. Washington courts have determined that the offer of initial employment or a change in the terms and conditions of employment is sufficient consideration or benefit to the employee in exchange for agreeing to not compete with the employer should the employment relationship terminate. An agreement signed after the employment has begun generally will not have the requisite consideration if there are no benefits other than continued employment.

Reasonableness in Time and Geographic Scope

Agreements may be deemed unenforceable if a court finds that they are unreasonable in terms of duration, geographic scope and the type of employment or line of business being restricted. If a court finds an agreement is unreasonable, it may modify the agreement so that it does not unduly infringe on the former employee’s ability to work.

Examples of non-compete agreements that Washington courts have found to be reasonable include:

  • A 1-year restriction against an insurance and investment broker.
  • A 2-year restriction against a senior engineering employee from “directly or indirectly” contacting the former employer’s customers.
  • A 1-year, 10-mile radius restriction against a former management employee from competing with a temporary manual labor staffing company.

The courts have found restrictive covenants unreasonable or used the “blue pencil” rule to modify agreements in these situations:

  • A 36-month, 50-mile radius restriction against a photocopier repair person from competing with his former employer.
  • A 5-year 100-mile restriction against a horseshoer.

Employers need to keep these issues in mind when asking employees to sign restrictive covenants. It is also important to know if potential new hires have a non-compete agreement with a former employer. In some cases, the new employer can be liable to the former employer if hiring the employee would put him or her in violation of the agreement. Different rules may apply to situations in which all or part of a business is being sold and a restrictive covenant is agreed to by the buyer and the seller.