Workers Challenge Major Employers Over Moonlighting Restrictions

Across Washington State, a growing number of workers are taking legal action against major employers, including Amazon, over restrictions that limit their ability to hold second jobs. This surge in lawsuits highlights a significant issue affecting many individuals trying to supplement their incomes in a challenging economic landscape.

Many workers in Washington have turned to multiple jobs to achieve a livable income. However, they often encounter obstacles from their employers, who impose restrictions on “moonlighting,” especially when it involves competitors. These restrictions are typically outlined in employment contracts or company policies aimed at preventing conflicts of interest. Advocates for workers argue that such bans disproportionately impact low-wage employees, limiting their economic mobility.

In the past year, numerous lawsuits have emerged challenging these moonlighting bans. Workers contend that they should not be restricted from taking additional shifts at competing businesses, such as a retail employee working at two different stores or a food service worker picking up shifts at various restaurants. Timothy Emery, managing shareholder of Emery Reddy, P.C., highlighted the struggles faced by minimum wage earners in Washington’s largest cities, emphasizing that without a second job, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage rising living costs.

Legal Landscape and Recent Rulings

Washington State law provides certain protections for employees earning less than twice the minimum wage, which is currently set at $33.32 per hour. Under this law, employers cannot restrict these workers from holding additional jobs simultaneously. Nevertheless, companies have historically leveraged a legal loophole to impose broad bans on moonlighting, particularly when it involves competitors.

A pivotal ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court in January 2023 has started to reshape this landscape. The court deemed a blanket moonlighting ban that restricted “all kinds of assistance to competitors” as unreasonable. While employers can still expect some loyalty from their workers, they can no longer enforce overly broad prohibitions. Jonathan Crook, a partner at the law firm Fisher Phillips, noted that the ruling clarifies that such bans need to be more narrowly defined.

The implications of this ruling could reverberate throughout the workforce. In theory, lower-wage workers should now have the freedom to engage in multiple jobs across competing companies without fear of losing their primary income. However, the practical application of this decision remains uncertain.

Ongoing Challenges and Future Implications

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, some of Washington’s prominent employers continue to enforce extensive moonlighting bans in their contracts. Timothy Emery, who represented the plaintiffs in the recent landmark case, indicated that he has filed additional lawsuits against companies, including Amazon, Alaska Airlines, and Costco, challenging their ongoing restrictions on workers.

In response to these claims, Amazon spokesperson Eileen Hards asserted that the company’s policies comply with state law, while Alaska Airlines and Costco did not provide comments regarding the ongoing litigation.

The legal battles initiated by these workers are likely to take months or even years to resolve. Emery remains optimistic that the outcomes will empower workers to pursue additional jobs within their areas of expertise. He believes that this newfound freedom could significantly enhance their bargaining power and career options.

As these cases unfold, the potential for change in the employment landscape in Washington could offer a glimpse into a more flexible work culture that accommodates the financial realities faced by many workers today.