Washington Employment Class Actions on the Rise

After many years of relative stability in the number of class action lawsuit filings, Washington employers are facing a dramatic increase in the number of class action lawsuits related to their employment practices. In 2023, only 54 employment class actions were filed in Washington state. By 2025, that number had jumped to 773. As of the time of drafting this article, 658 more have been filed in just the first half of 2026.

This rise is largely driven by two factors. First, a number of new law firms focused on bringing class action lawsuits have entered the Washington market. Second, plaintiffs' counsel have been increasingly targeting a broad range of workplace practices (including wage-and-hour compliance, pay transparency obligations, worker classifications, and restrictions on outside employment or non-compete agreements) by advancing new theories that seek to convert ordinary policies and practices into classwide claims. Now, a single policy or job posting can result in a class lawsuit and require employers to spend thousands of hours and dollars in defense—even where the alleged violation is technical, inadvertent, or based on a misreading of policy. Employers should use this moment to assess policies and practices most likely to attract scrutiny and, where appropriate, conduct a review with counsel before receiving a demand letter, agency complaint, or class action filing.

Why Washington Has Become a Target

The surge in filings reflects more than a temporary uptick in employment disputes. It shows that Washington has become an increasingly attractive forum for firms looking to bring high-volume employment class actions. As new firms enter the market, employers should expect greater scrutiny (and more creative characterization) of their policies, standardized templates, and companywide practices in an effort to frame them as classwide violations.

Changes in California Law

Many of these firms have entered the market from California. For example, in 2025 and 2026, six law firms, based largely in California, have filed almost 700 class action employment suits in Washington, including 272 cases by Justice Law Corporation, 145 by Crosner Legal, and 111 by Lawyers for Justice in the first six months of 2026 alone. This trend can be partly explained by recent legislative changes to California's class action landscape. California has long been a hotbed for wage-and-hour class action practice, helped by California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California. In 2024, California enacted a law that reformed certain aspects of PAGA claims, which changed the structure of PAGA's relief provisions and allows employers to "cure" violations in certain situations. Likely partly as a result of this legislation, California plaintiffs' counsel see Washington as the new frontier.

Meal Period Penalties

A 2025 Washington Court of Appeals decision addressed employees' rights to take a 30-minute meal break and the additional payments that may be due for employees who miss a meal break. This has bolstered plaintiffs' counsel's confidence that meal and rest break cases will result in lucrative recoveries and attorneys' fees. This decision, and others, have led to the filing of more than 400 class action lawsuits against companies in the first half of this year alone. While these types of lawsuits can present challenges to defend, there are important actions an employer can take now to help reduce the potential exposure if a lawsuit is filed.

Expanding Non-Compete Theories

Another development is the increasingly expansive view that plaintiffs' counsel are taking regarding Washington's new and ever more restrictive rules related to non-compete covenants. Rather than limiting challenges to traditional non-compete agreements, plaintiffs' attorneys have argued that a variety of employment-related provisions can function as de facto restraints on competition.

Examples include:

• Bonus agreements that include provisions for return of the bonus if certain employment requirements are not met;
• Agreements that require employees to advise an employer about any new job offers and provide a chance for the employer to make a counter offer;
• Broad confidentiality or nonsolicitation provisions that could arguably have the practical effect of preventing employees from working for particular companies or jobs in the future; and
• Third-party agreements/contracts that arguably limit the ability of employees to get hired into new positions, including placement fee agreements with customers.

These theories have led to an unpleasant surprise for nearly 40 employers this year when they were served with a class action lawsuit. Between these theories and others not yet asserted, employers can expect more unpleasant surprises in the coming years, as many have not realized that their existing policies could be characterized as improper non-competes.

Of course, as of July 1, 2027, Washington will ban nearly all non-compete agreements. Read more about developments in non-compete litigation in our March 2026 insight.

Moonlighting and Secondary Employment Issues

Policies that restrict or regulate outside or secondary employment are also being scrutinized. Plaintiffs' counsel have increasingly argued that moonlighting policies, conflict-of-interest rules, exclusivity requirements, and secondary-employment approval processes can unlawfully restrict employee mobility.

Plaintiffs use the Washington Supreme Court's decision in David v. Freedom Vans LLC (2025) to argue that employer policies that restrict or regulate outside work in broad terms, or policies that could be interpreted as restricting employees from pursuing additional employment opportunities, violate Washington's non-compete laws. This includes even relatively benign policies, such as a policy to prevent employees from engaging in conflicts of interest. While employees in Washington are still subject to a duty of loyalty, this decision has bolstered the plaintiffs' bar in many ways.

Pay Transparency Requirements

The Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) imposes requirements regarding compensation disclosures in job postings. In recent years, plaintiffs' counsel have filed a substantial number of lawsuits alleging noncompliance with these requirements, making pay transparency one of the fastest-growing areas of employment litigation in the state.

The Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Branson v. Total Wine & Spirits (2025) rejected arguments that a plaintiff must be a "bona fide" or good-faith applicant to pursue a pay transparency claim under the EPOA. Instead, the Court held that an individual may qualify as a "job applicant" if they submit an application for a specific available position, regardless of their subjective intent in doing so. In 2025, the law was amended to allow employers an opportunity to cure a deficient posting after receiving notice, although that protection runs only through July 27, 2027. You can find more information about that update in our April 2025 insight.

In addition, plaintiffs have begun bringing claims under a different section of this statute alleging that an employer's policy improperly prevented its employees from discussing or disclosing wages. Specifically, plaintiffs are claiming that policies limiting employees' ability to share confidential information can be read to prohibit employees from discussing their wages, even where the policy never contemplated that outcome.

Recommendations

Employment class actions are extremely difficult to prevent entirely, but employers can take practical steps now to reduce exposure and improve their defensible posture if a claim is filed. DWT can help employers conduct a privileged review of the policies, agreements, templates, and practices most likely to be targeted by plaintiffs' counsel and can recommend practical revisions designed to reduce class action risk. We recommend you work with your employment counsel to:

• Review and revise policies and agreements for compliance, including meal and rest break policies and procedures, employee classification practices, compensation policies, handbook provisions, confidentiality language, bonus and clawback terms, and outside employment or non-compete restrictions;
• Evaluate whether arbitration agreements with class action waivers, meal period waivers, and/or timekeeping attestation language would strengthen the employer's risk-mitigation strategy;
• Review job posting templates and compensation disclosure practices, and develop compliance checklists for hiring managers, recruiters, and human resources teams;
• Provide manager and employee training on recurring class action targets, including meal and rest break requirements, overtime, exemption classification, pay transparency, and policies that may be characterized as restricting employee mobility; and
• Identify and prioritize remedial steps, implement policy revisions, and create documentation that supports the employer's good-faith compliance efforts.

Because many of these claims are based on standardized policies or recurring practices, early review and targeted revisions can materially reduce litigation risk. Our employment litigation and counseling teams can help employers assess their current practices, prioritize the highest-risk issues, and implement practical changes.

+++

Derek Bishop is a partner, Alex Cates is counsel, and Aliah McCord is an associate in DWT's Seattle office. For any questions or more insights, please contact the authors or another member of our employment services team. To stay informed, sign up for our alerts.