Apple Seeks Arbitration in Anti-Moonlighting Lawsuit

Tech giant argues former employee waived right to sue over policy barring second jobs

Jan. 29, 2026 at 9:23pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Apple Inc. has urged a Seattle federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit filed by former employee Gabriel Fisher. The lawsuit accuses Apple of unlawfully prohibiting lower-wage workers from taking second jobs, arguing that Fisher gave up his right to sue when he signed an arbitration agreement as part of his job offer.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing debate around non-compete and anti-moonlighting policies, which some argue unfairly restrict worker mobility and income opportunities, especially for lower-wage employees. Apple's push to move the case to arbitration also reflects a broader trend of companies seeking to avoid public lawsuits.

The details

In the lawsuit, Fisher alleges that Apple's policy barring employees from taking second jobs is unlawful. Apple has argued that Fisher waived his right to sue by signing an arbitration agreement when he was hired. The company is now urging the Seattle federal judge to throw out the proposed class action and compel Fisher to resolve the dispute through private arbitration.

  • The lawsuit was filed in January 2026.

The players

Apple Inc.

A multinational technology company that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.

Gabriel Fisher

A former Apple employee who filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the company over its policy barring workers from taking second jobs.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed in court or compel the dispute to be resolved through private arbitration.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between companies seeking to restrict employee activities and workers' rights to seek additional income opportunities. The outcome could have broader implications for the enforceability of non-compete and anti-moonlighting policies, especially for lower-wage workers.