In Washington, what is the minimum annualized earnings threshold for a noncompetition covenant to be enforceable against a Dog Haus franchisee's employee?
Dog_Haus Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.
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 or rights or remedies under the Act, such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
Transfer fees are collectable to the extent that they reflect the Franchisor's reasonable estimated or act
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 87–328)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Dog Haus's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, in the state of Washington, a noncompetition covenant is unenforceable against an employee of a Dog Haus franchisee if the employee's annualized earnings from the franchisee are $100,000 or less. This threshold is subject to annual adjustments for inflation.
This means that if a Dog Haus franchisee in Washington wants to enforce a non-compete agreement against a former employee, that employee must have been earning more than $100,000 per year, adjusted for inflation. If the employee's earnings were below this threshold, the non-compete agreement is considered void and unenforceable under Washington state law.
This provision protects lower-earning employees from being unduly restricted in their future employment opportunities. It also means that Dog Haus franchisees in Washington need to be aware of this earnings threshold when drafting and attempting to enforce non-compete agreements with their employees. The FDD also states that any conflicting provisions in the franchise agreement are void and unenforceable in Washington.