Is a contractual provision requiring an employee to adjudicate a non-competition covenant outside of Washington State enforceable for Mrcool?
Mrcool Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
in Washington.
-
- 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, rights or remedie
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 55–263)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Mrcool's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a contractual provision that mandates an employee to resolve a non-competition agreement outside of Washington State is not enforceable. This is due to Washington state law, which explicitly voids such provisions.
This means that if a Mrcool franchisee in Washington State hires an employee, any agreement requiring that employee to litigate non-compete issues outside of Washington is invalid. This protects the employee's right to have such disputes settled within the state's legal jurisdiction.
This provision is particularly important for Mrcool franchisees in Washington as it ensures that their employees are not subjected to potentially unfavorable legal proceedings in other states. It also aligns with the broader trend of state laws designed to protect employees' rights and limit the scope of non-compete agreements.