What is the enforceability of a contractual provision that requires an employee to adjudicate a non-competition covenant outside of Washington State for a Bang Cookies franchise?
Bang_Cookies Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
either in the State of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or as determined by the arbitrator.
-
- In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW shall prevail.
-
- A release or waiver of rights executed by a franchisee shall not include rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel. Provisions such as those which unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Act, rig
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 56–245)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to Bang Cookies' 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document, if a Bang Cookies franchise is purchased in Washington state, any contractual provision that requires an employee to adjudicate a non-competition covenant outside of Washington State is void and unenforceable. This is in accordance with Chapter 49.62 RCW, which limits the use of non-competition agreements.
This amendment to the Bang Cookies Franchise Agreement specifically addresses Washington State's Franchise Investment Protection Act. It ensures that certain protections are in place for franchisees operating in Washington. This includes stipulations around arbitration location, conflict of laws, and waivers of rights.
For a prospective Bang Cookies franchisee in Washington, this means that Bang Cookies cannot enforce a clause requiring an employee to resolve a non-compete dispute outside of Washington. This provides a level of protection and ensures that legal proceedings can occur within the state, likely making it more convenient and cost-effective for the employee. This also aligns with Washington's broader stance on limiting non-competition agreements to protect employees.