Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Therapists and Behavioral Health Staff in Washington?

Washington gives a behavioral health practice a narrow window, and it is closing.

Until June 30, 2027, a non-compete is enforceable against a therapist, BCBA or other employee only if all of these hold:

• Written disclosure at the offer. The covenant is void unless its terms were disclosed in writing no later than the employee's acceptance of the offer. If it was signed after employment began, the employer must have provided independent consideration for it (RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)).
• Earnings above the threshold. For 2026, the covenant is void against an employee whose annualized earnings from the employer are $126,858.83 or less, or an independent contractor earning $317,147.09 or less — L&I's inflation adjustment under RCW 49.62.040. As of October 7, 2026, L&I had not yet posted a 2027 figure.
• A term of 18 months or less. A Washington court or arbitrator must presume a covenant exceeding 18 months after termination unreasonable and unenforceable, unless the employer proves by clear and convincing evidence that a longer term is necessary.

Two more rules narrow the window.

An employee terminated in a layoff cannot be held to a non-compete unless the employer pays base salary for the enforcement period, minus what they earn through subsequent employment.

And for Washington-based employees and contractors, a covenant that requires litigation outside Washington, or deprives them of Washington law's protections, is void (RCW 49.62.050).

On June 30, 2027 the window closes: every non-compete in Washington becomes void and unenforceable regardless of when it was signed, and entering into, enforcing or threatening to enforce one becomes a violation of the statute.

Washington writes its non-compete rules in statute.

Chapter 49.62 of the Revised Code of Washington supplies the interim rules on this page: the written-disclosure condition (RCW 49.62.020(1)(a)), the earnings thresholds the Department of Labor & Industries adjusts for inflation under RCW 49.62.040, the 18-month presumption, the layoff pay requirement, the litigation-forum rule (RCW 49.62.050) and the penalties below.

The June 30, 2027 ban itself comes from chapter 149 of Washington's 2026 session laws, the act under which all non-competes in Washington become void and unenforceable on that date no matter when they were signed — and under which entering into, enforcing or threatening to enforce one becomes a violation.

What the federal government did or did not do about non-competes, and how Washington compares with states that write profession-specific bans naming behavioral health licenses, is national context: see our guide to non-competes nationally.

There is no behavioral health carve-out in RCW 49.62, and none to work around.

The statute has no separate rule for counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, behavior analysts, nurses or physicians: its definition of a noncompetition covenant reaches "every written or oral covenant, agreement, or contract that prohibits or restrains an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind."

For a practice roster, that means one rule set across every role.

The hourly behavior technician and the psychiatrist sit under the same disclosure, threshold, duration and layoff rules — and the same June 30, 2027 ban.

The earnings threshold, not the license, decides whether the interim rules can reach a given hire at all.

It also means Washington hands you no profession-specific exemption to lean on for prescriber or clinician hires.

Where a state writes a rule for a named license, that rule is that state's statute, not Washington's; which states name behavioral health licenses is national context — see our guide to non-competes nationally.

Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62 sets specific statutory tests a covenant must pass.

Time.

Eighteen months after termination is the presumptive ceiling: a Washington court or arbitrator must presume any covenant exceeding 18 months unreasonable and unenforceable unless the employer proves by clear and convincing evidence that a longer term is necessary.

That is a heavy standard to carry — and the penalty below applies if you litigate and the clause gets struck or trimmed anyway.

Area and scope.

None of the statute's voiding conditions turns on how tightly the clause is drawn.

Written disclosure, the earnings threshold and the duration presumption attach to a covenant however narrow it is: a short, small-radius clause is still void against a clinician at or below the 2026 threshold, and still void without written disclosure at offer acceptance.

Whether Washington courts also weigh a covenant's geographic area is not something the statute's conditions answer; have Washington employment counsel check current case law.

Legitimate business interest.

RCW 49.62's statutory conditions run on disclosure, pay and duration — the conditions above — and the interest you are protecting is not one of them.

Whether a court separately asks what interest the clause protects is likewise a question for counsel, not an assumption to draft on.

And the downside is statutory: if a court or arbitrator finds a non-compete violates RCW 49.62, or reforms, rewrites or only partially enforces one, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

Washington law prices the attempt, which is why over-reaching is expensive even for a practice that considers itself the wronged party.

Non-solicits sit outside the non-compete rules — but only the genuine article, and Washington's line between the two is easy to cross on paper.

Under the statute in effect until June 30, 2027, a "nonsolicitation agreement" — a bar on soliciting employees, or on soliciting current customers to cease or reduce the extent to which they do business with the employer — is not a non-compete.

A clause that prohibits accepting or transacting business with a customer is treated as a non-compete.

That second category is exactly what a "clients who follow the therapist" clause is: it bars service, not solicitation, so it takes the non-compete's conditions today and is void from June 30, 2027 like any other non-compete.

From June 30, 2027, a client non-solicit counts as a permitted nonsolicitation agreement only if both of these are true: it covers current or prospective customers, patients or clients with whom the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship through their work for the employer, and it expires no later than 18 months after termination.

Read as practice policy: you can stop a departing BCBA from soliciting the families they served, for up to 18 months, when they built those relationships working for your clinic.

You cannot stop the families from calling them.

The statute polices solicitation, not service.

How other states treat client non-solicits, and what the ethics codes expect when a clinician departs, is covered in our guide to non-solicitation clauses.

What survives June 30, 2027 is narrower than a non-compete, but it is not nothing.

• An education-repayment agreement built to the carve-out. From June 30, 2027, a written agreement to repay out-of-pocket educational expenses is not a non-compete only if it expires within 18 months of the employee's start date, limits repayment to the pro rata share of the remaining 18-month period, and releases an employee who leaves for good cause under RCW 50.20.050. That is the provision for a practice that funds licensure supervision, BCBA coursework or CEUs and wants repayment if the clinician leaves — build the agreement to the three conditions above. The statute's wider "repay or forfeit" definition — which from June 30, 2027 also counts provisions requiring a worker to return, repay or forfeit any right, benefit or compensation because they engage in a lawful profession — has one spelled-out exception, and this is it. How far that definition reaches into other repayment clauses is a question for employment counsel, not an assumption to draft on. See our guide to training repayment agreements before putting one in an offer.
• A client non-solicit drafted to the 2027 definition. Relationship-based, expiring within 18 months of termination — the tool the statute keeps for the client relationships your clinicians actually built.
• Confidentiality around the client list. Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, business information — including compilations such as client lists — is a trade secret only if the owner took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it has independent economic value from not being generally known. Reasonable measures are the practice's job: controlled access, locked-down exports and a departure checklist that runs every time a clinician leaves.

Then put two dates on the calendar.

By October 1, 2027, an employer must make reasonable efforts to give written notice to every current and former employee and contractor whose non-compete is still in effect that the covenant is void.

And before June 30, 2027, have Washington employment counsel read every template that carries a covenant, a no-accept clause or a repayment provision — the $5,000-plus-fees penalty attaches even to a covenant that only gets reformed, and the drafting fix costs far less than the test case.