The employee in this case began working for the employer as an at-will fitness instructor in
- In 2009, the employer drafted an employment agreement that imposed a non- compete.?? The employee?s terms and conditions of employment did not otherwise change.?? The agreement specifically stated that the only consideration for the non-compete was the employee?s continued employment.??? ?The employer? ?fired? ?the?? employee?? in? ?2011? ?for allegedly engaging in a sexual relationship with a customer.
The employee sought a declaratory judgment that the non-compete was void. ?Even though the contract contained an integration clause, the employer claimed that it orally promised ?the? employee? several ?additional benefits in exchange for the non-compete.?? The Superior Court held that this created a genuine issue of material fact and denied the employee?s motion for summary judgment.? ?The Court of Appeals granted discretionary review.
Relying?? on? ?Labriola,?? the? ?Court?? of Appeals held that an employer must provide consideration for a non-compete.? ?If the non- compete is entered into mid-term in an existing at-will employment relationship the employer must provide independent consideration at the time of the agreement.?? ?As examples of independent ?consideration ?the? Court ?gave ?wages, a promotion, a bonus, or access to protected information.???? ?Refraining from terminating the employee for refusing to sign the?non-compete ?was ?not ?listed ?as ?an ?example ?of??independent consideration.??The? Court ?held ?that ?the? contract?s integration clause prevented introduction of oral evidence inconsistent with the contract. ?The Court rejected the employer?s claim it had included the integration clause by mistake, as the employer had drafted the contract.
McKasson v. Johnson, — Wn. App. —, 315 P.3d?1138? (Div. ?II Dec.? 17,? 2013) (Hunt,? Worswick, Johanson)