Two separate Washington lawsuits challenge different Amazon employment practices: Burns v. Amazon concerns an alleged post-employment restriction in employee agreements, while Rios v. Amazon concerns a job posting that allegedly omitted required pay information. Neither case establishes that Amazon violated the law. The Burns notice says the court approved class treatment but had not decided the merits; the Rios federal order addressed jurisdiction and remand, not whether the posting complied with Washington law.
How the two Amazon cases differ
| Case | Issue | Court and case number | What the cited court material establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burns v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. | Whether a provision in certain employee agreements is an unlawful noncompetition covenant | King County Superior Court, Washington, No. 24-2-22574-9 SEA | A court-authorized notice says the case should proceed on a class basis. It does not decide liability or who will prevail. |
| Rios v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al. | Whether a job posting omitted the wage scale or salary range required by Washington law | Filed in King County Superior Court; removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:25-cv-02220-JNW | The federal court granted remand to King County Superior Court and denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss as moot. The order does not decide whether Amazon violated the disclosure law. |
What the Burns non-compete lawsuit alleges
Former Amazon employees Joshua Burns and Trishelle Garner sued Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Retail LLC. They allege that Section 4.1 of Amazon’s Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement (CIAA)—titled “Non-Solicitation”—and agreements containing the same language impose an unlawful noncompetition covenant. The court-authorized notice describes an 18-month post-separation restriction on soliciting certain Amazon customers or business partners. That is the plaintiffs’ legal characterization, not a finding that the provision is illegal.
The notice says the court determined on September 4, 2025, that the case should proceed on a class basis. Class treatment allows the case to be pursued for a group meeting the notice’s criteria; it does not mean Amazon has been found liable. As the notice puts it, “The Court has not ruled on who will prevail.” Read the court-authorized Burns class notice for its terms and case information.
Who the Burns notice says may be included
The notice describes potential class members as people who worked for Amazon from January 1, 2020, through September 4, 2025, whose annual earnings were below the threshold referenced in RCW 49.62.020(1)(b), as adjusted under RCW 49.62.040, and who may have signed a CIAA or another agreement containing the specified language. These are notice criteria, not an individual determination of eligibility.
#1 Best Overall
What the notice says about money and deadlines
Burns and Garner allege that Amazon should pay $5,000 to each class member. That is an amount sought by the plaintiffs, not a court award, settlement, or guaranteed recovery. The notice says, “There is no money available at this time and no guarantee that there ever will be.” It listed March 31, 2026, as the opt-out deadline, which had passed by October 8, 2026.
The notice listed September 10, 2026, as the trial date and warned that it could change. That date had passed by October 8, 2026, but the available case material does not verify whether trial occurred or whether a later ruling or settlement followed. The case’s subsequent outcome should not be inferred from the scheduled date.
Rank #2
What the Rios pay-transparency lawsuit alleges
Christine Rios alleges that a job posting for a position she and the proposed class applied for did not disclose the wage scale or salary range. According to the federal order, Rios filed the case in King County Superior Court on October 3, 2024, and Amazon removed it to federal court in November 2025.
The order describes Washington’s 2022 amendment to the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), which requires a job posting for each opening to disclose the wage scale or salary range and a general description of benefits and other compensation. Quoting the rule, the order says employers must “disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant.” Rios’s allegation that the posting failed to meet that requirement remains an allegation; the order did not decide whether it did.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why the federal court sent Rios back to state court
The federal court concluded that Rios had not established Article III standing because her allegations did not show she was a bona fide applicant or identify concrete harm. It granted her motion to remand the case to King County Superior Court and denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss as moot. The ruling addresses whether the case could proceed in federal court on the allegations presented; it is not a decision on the EPOA claim’s merits.
The order’s date is unclear in the reproduced material: Justia metadata gives June 17, 2026, while the order text says June 17, 2027. Because those dates conflict—and the latter is after October 8, 2026—the date and later state-court status require confirmation from the court docket. The reproduced Rios federal remand order contains the ruling and date discrepancy.
Quick Recap
Best Value
What workers should—and should not—infer
- These are separate cases. Burns concerns an alleged contract restriction after employment; Rios concerns compensation information in a job posting.
- Procedural progress is not proof of a violation. The Burns class notice expressly leaves the merits undecided, and the Rios remand ruling concerns federal jurisdiction rather than the alleged disclosure violation.
- A notice’s class criteria do not determine an individual’s status. The Burns notice describes a possible group, but whether a particular person fits it depends on the actual agreement and other facts.
- No recovery is established by the materials cited here. The $5,000 figure in Burns is the plaintiffs’ alleged amount, not an award or promise of payment.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
