A Noncompete By Any Other Name: Assessing the Validity of Training Repayment Agreements Under Washington Law Authors

Abstract: Training Repayment Agreements (TRAs) are restrictive employment covenants that require an employee to pay their employer a fixed or prorated sum for training costs if the employee quits their job within some period defined by the agreement. The prevalence of TRAs has drastically increased in low-wage employment. TRAs harm employees by imposing an artificial financial constraint that disincentivizes employees from leaving their employer within the contract duration. The Washington State Legislature has not directly addressed TRAs despite having articulated limits on other restrictive employment covenants, like noncompetition agreements. This Comment reviews federal agency actions and other states’ approaches in response to the increased use of TRAs. Considering how Washington courts interpret the enforceability of similar restrictive employment covenants, this Comment assesses how Washington courts would interpret the enforceability of TRAs. This Comment analyzes TRAs by determining whether (1) TRAs violate the unconscionability doctrine, (2) TRAs are unenforceable under the Racine test used to evaluate noncompetes, (3) TRAs are de facto noncompetes and thereby unenforceable under RCW 49.62, and (4) TRAs violate minimum wage regulations. This Comment concludes that none of these pathways provide a ready answer for whether these agreements are enforceable under Washington law. Ultimately, the recent expansion of the unconscionability doctrine in Tadych provides the strongest argument for employees.