What is the minimum annualized earning threshold for a noncompetition covenant to be enforceable against an employee of a Brueggers Bagels franchisee in Washington?
Brueggers_Bagels Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
ent Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
- b. RCW 19.100.180 may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions which may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise.
- c. In any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the arbitration or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 61–335)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Brueggers Bagels's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, in Washington, a noncompetition covenant is only enforceable against an employee of a Brueggers Bagels franchisee if the employee's annualized earnings exceed $100,000. This figure will be adjusted annually for inflation. This is per RCW 49.62.020.
This means that if a Brueggers Bagels franchisee in Washington wants to enforce a non-compete agreement against an employee, that employee must be earning more than $100,000 per year, with that amount subject to annual inflation adjustments. If the employee earns less than this threshold, the non-compete agreement is considered void and unenforceable.
This provision protects lower-earning employees from being unduly restricted in their future employment opportunities. It also means that Brueggers Bagels franchisees in Washington need to be aware of this law when drafting employment agreements and considering non-compete clauses. Any conflicting terms in the franchise agreement are void and unenforceable in Washington.