Standard business conduct policy sparks federal fight over worker mobility rights
Apple faces allegations it barred low-wage workers in Washington from taking second jobs, potentially exposing companies nationwide to similar claims.
Gabriel Fisher, a former Apple employee in Washington, is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the tech giant in federal court. The case, originally filed in King County Superior Court on December 17, 2025, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 20, 2026.
Fisher claims Apple violated Washington state law by preventing workers earning less than twice the minimum wage from holding additional jobs or supplementing their income. The allegations center on Apple's "Business Conduct: The way we do business" guide, which all employees are required to follow as a condition of employment. Fisher claims this guide, along with other written or oral agreements, unlawfully restricted him and other class members from having second jobs, working as independent contractors, or being self-employed.
Washington law has prohibited such restrictions since January 1, 2020. Employers cannot restrict, restrain, or prohibit employees earning less than twice the state minimum wage from pursuing additional employment. The wage threshold adjusts annually. In 2025, workers making less than $33.32 an hour were protected. This year, that threshold rose to $34.26 an hour.
Washington legislators amended the law in 2024 after determining that courts were misinterpreting the statute's protections. The amendments clarified that the law should be read broadly to protect workers and narrowly when it comes to exceptions. Legislators also made explicit that employers cannot prevent former employees from accepting or doing business with customers.
The Washington Supreme Court addressed the issue last year in a separate case, recognizing that many low-wage workers must juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet and provide for their families. One justice noted that employers wanting more control over workers' outside activities have a simple solution: pay them more than twice the minimum wage.
The potential scale of the case became clearer when Apple removed the case to federal court. Fisher originally alleged the class included more than 40 workers. However, in its removal filing, Apple revealed that a preliminary review of company records shows more than 1,000 individuals worked for Apple in Washington from December 17, 2022 to January 15, 2026 who earned less than twice the applicable state minimum wage.
Each class member seeks $5,000 in statutory damages under the law. With more than 1,000 workers potentially in the class, the exposure could exceed $5 million, not including attorneys' fees and costs that successful plaintiffs can recover. The complaint also requests injunctive relief to stop Apple from continuing the alleged practices and declaratory relief stating that Apple's anti-moonlighting policies violate Washington law.
Apple employs approximately 164,000 people worldwide and operates retail locations in Washington, including stores in Tukwila and Seattle. In its removal notice, Apple denied all claims in their entirety and expressly reserved the right to move for dismissal of some or all of the plaintiff's claims. No determination has been made on the merits of the case.
For HR professionals, the implications are significant. The fact that Apple's preliminary records identified more than 1,000 potentially affected workers underscores how standardized corporate policies can create substantial exposure when they conflict with state worker protection laws. According to the complaint, Apple's policies amount to a standard business practice applied systematically across its Washington workforce.
The practical challenge for multi-state employers is maintaining policies that satisfy different jurisdictions without creating a patchwork of conflicting rules. Some companies may need separate policy frameworks for different wage bands or geographic regions. Others may choose to eliminate moonlighting restrictions altogether rather than navigate complex compliance requirements.
The Apple case serves as a reminder that standardized policies enforced nationwide can create unexpected exposure when state laws diverge from common corporate practices.
