What is the minimum annualized earnings threshold for a noncompetition covenant to be enforceable against an employee of a Crave Cookies franchisee in Washington?
Crave_Cookies Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
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, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
Franchisor will not collect any initial fees until it has provided its pre-opening obligations under the Franchise Agreement and the franchisee is open for business.
Transfer fees are collectable to the extent that they reflect the franchisor's reasonable estimated or actual costs in effecting a transfer.
Pursuant to RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an employee, including an employee of a franchisee, unless the
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–194)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Crave Cookies' 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, in the state of Washington, a noncompetition covenant is unenforceable against an employee of a Crave Cookies franchisee if the employee's annualized earnings from the franchisee are $100,000 or less. This figure is subject to annual adjustments for inflation. This protection is provided under RCW 49.62.020.
This means that a Crave Cookies franchisee in Washington cannot legally enforce a non-compete agreement against an employee who earns less than the annually adjusted $100,000 threshold. This limitation is designed to protect lower-earning employees from being unduly restricted in their future employment opportunities.
Furthermore, the FDD states that any provisions within the franchise agreement or other related documents that conflict with these limitations on noncompetition covenants are considered void and unenforceable in Washington. This ensures that the state law takes precedence over any contractual terms that might attempt to circumvent the employee protections.