House lawmakers on the Labor & Workplace Standards Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1155, a measure led by Committee Chair Rep. Liz Berry that would make most noncompetition agreements unenforceable in Washington regardless of when they were signed.

The bill would expand the statutory definition of noncompetes, remove the existing salary thresholds used to determine enforceability, and bar employers from enforcing or threatening to enforce those agreements. It would also require employers to provide current and former employees and independent contractors a written notice that a noncompete is void by Oct. 1, 2025, under the bill’s timeline reported to the committee.

The committee received legal and personal testimony in support. Kelly Leonard, counsel to the committee, summarized existing Washington law in her staff briefing, saying current state law treats many noncompetes as void unless employers meet restrictions tied to salary thresholds and reasonableness standards, including an 18‑month presumptive limit on duration. Jesse Wing, an employment lawyer with the Washington Employment Lawyers Association, told the committee that remaining high‑wage thresholds still allow “abuses that are harming employees,” and urged lawmakers to move the bill to the House floor.

Several workers described litigation and lost earnings they said flowed from noncompetes. Sun Shin said a Midwest court applied an out‑of‑state noncompete against her despite compliance arguments invoking Washington law, and added that the ruling “prevented me from working for many months,” creating a heavy financial burden. Another testifier, Tifa Harris, described being sued after taking a job at the University of Washington from a staffing agency employer; she said the litigation caused emotional and financial strain despite her assertion that she did not take clients or proprietary materials.

Business and industry representatives opposed the bill as written. Lindsay Huber of the Association of Washington Business said the association supports a statutory framework that limits noncompetes to higher wage earners and urged preserving tailored protections for employers that invest in employees. Mike Burgess, representing fairs, told the committee that short date‑based restrictions in entertainer contracts are negotiated and used to protect investments; he said he had given up such restrictions in recent contracts as part of negotiations. Roland Thompson of the Washington State Association of Broadcasters said the broadcast industry relies on protections for “on‑air talent” and asked that the existing broadcast‑specific section remain in place.

Supporters, including the Washington State Labor Council and worker advocacy groups, urged a full ban. Joe Kendo of the labor council said the bill would “finally end the unfair… practice of binding workers to their employers,” while Jeremiah Miller of Fair Work Center said noncompetes lock workers into low‑paying jobs and impede mobility.

Committee members asked questions about how Washington’s changes would compare with other states. Chair Berry referenced federal action by the Federal Trade Commission and noted some states, including California and Minnesota, have broader bans. Staff said other states vary: some have full bans, others impose restrictions, and some have none.

No formal vote occurred during the hearing; the committee took testimony and then closed the hearing on HB 1155.