³ÉÈËXÕ¾

Two Amazon employees in the retail and warehouse sectors have filed a lawsuit this month, alleging that the company restricted their post-employment options, violating Washington state’s ban on non-compete agreements. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, aims to represent dozens of current and former Amazon employees.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Seattle-based law firm claim that Amazon required workers to sign non-compete agreements embedded within lengthy offer letters. These agreements, they argue, limit their ability to seek employment with competitors or engage in business with Amazon’s customers after leaving the company.

“We’re seeing violations throughout the state,” Timothy Emery, an attorney from the Seattle-based Emery Reddy law firm told “In the end, a lot of companies still can’t let go of the idea that their employees are free to just leave whenever they want and practice their trade elsewhere.”

MyNorthwest News: EPA hits company with facility in Enumclaw, WA with $366,000 fine

Non-compete agreements are designed to prevent employees from joining rival companies or working with a company’s clients for a specified period. Employers argue that these agreements protect trade secrets and their investment in employee training. However, critics contend that non-competes restrict workers’ ability to find new jobs and negotiate higher wages. Federal agencies have recently scrutinized these agreements, with attempts to ban them earlier this year.

Washington state banned non-compete agreements for employees earning less than $100,000 annually in 2020. This year, the state legislature strengthened the enforcement of this ban and adjusted the salary threshold to approximately $120,000.

In addition to the non-compete allegations, two new class-action lawsuits have been filed against Amazon, targeting the company’s hiring practices and alleging violations of Washington state laws on pay transparency and non-compete agreements. These lawsuits were filed last week in King County Superior Court in Seattle.

Amazon responded to the lawsuits in a statement to saying, “We comply with all applicable laws in the localities where we operate. We’ve just received these complaints and are reviewing them.”

Business News: Washington restaurants’ profits plummeting, solutions are scarce

One of the lawsuits claims that Amazon required plaintiffs to agree to clauses that restricted their post-Amazon employment opportunities, despite earning less than the salary threshold required to enforce such agreements. This threshold, which was established in 2020, started at $100,000 and has been adjusted for inflation each year, reaching $120,599.99 in 2024.

Timothy Emery, an attorney with Emery Reddy, commented on the issue, stating, “Noncompetition covenants persist even after becoming illegal in 2020 — they’ve just gone underground. As alleged, employers like Amazon cleverly disguise illegal non-competes as ‘nonsolicitation’ clauses. Unfortunately for the lowest-paid workers, little has changed since the law was passed in 2020.”

Non-compete agreements have been a contentious issue in the tech industry. Proponents argue that they protect trade secrets, while critics claim they stifle innovation. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule to ban non-compete agreements, but a federal judge in Texas blocked the ban from taking effect last month.

The outcome of these lawsuits could have significant implications for Amazon and its employees, potentially reshaping the company’s hiring practices and the broader use of non-compete agreements in the tech industry. As the legal battles unfold, the debate over the balance between protecting business interests and ensuring worker mobility continues to intensify.

Bill Kaczaraba is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here. Follow Bill on X, formerly known as Twitter, and email him here.Ìý