How to Update Your Separation Agreements in Light of Recent EEOC Challenges

05 May 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Much has been written about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent attacks on various provisions of separation agreements, including what are generally viewed as garden variety clauses that have been standard fare in separation agreements for many years. Among other things, the EEOC has challenged employers on the use of confidentiality clauses, non-disparagement clauses, and covenants not to sue.

The EEOC’s theory is this: Regardless of whether an employee and employer have already reached a mutual agreement regarding the terms of a separation, the EEOC still has an interest in addressing discrimination and retaliation issues that may be occurring in the workplace. The EEOC does not want separating employees to believe that employers can buy their silence (with a confidentiality clause, for example) as to any discrimination that may be occurring against the separating employee or any of his or her co-workers. Likewise, the Commission does not want separating employees to believe they are forbidden (because of a non-disparagement clause) from telling the EEOC about the bad things that occurred in the workplace and the bad actors there. Further, the EEOC does not want employees to believe that they have given up their right to file a charge of discrimination (because of a covenant not to sue) after settling their claims in a separation agreement. (The employer can certainly require the employee to sign a promise not to accept any personal monetary or other recovery arising from such charge, but the EEOC takes the position that an employer cannot forbid an employee from filing a charge in the EEOC or any state agency.) Finally, the EEOC has long held that a covenant not to sue cannot prohibit an employee from attacking the validity of the Agreement if it fails to include components required under the federal age discrimination laws (for example, the 21-day consideration period and seven day revocation period).

In light of this attack on years of commonly used practices, what changes should employers be considering to their separation agreements to defend against these EEOC tactics? At this point, we do not have significant judicial authority to guide the way, and for now at least, we do not know whether courts will accept some or all of the EEOC’s recent challenges. However, given the cost of litigation against the EEOC and the relative ease of modifying standard separation agreements, we believe employers should consider tweaking their agreements to address these concerns. Two illustrative paragraphs appear below. Option Two appears as a stand-alone paragraph and includes broader employee protections, and is therefore more legally conservative than Option One.

OPTION ONE – INSERT INTO EXISTING RELEASE PARAGRAPH
Nothing in this Agreement (including any confidentiality provision in paragraph ___, the non-disparagement provision in paragraph ___ and the covenant not to sue in paragraph ___) prevents you from filing a charge with the EEOC or otherwise cooperating with or providing information to the EEOC. However, this Agreement does prohibit you from obtaining any personal or monetary relief for yourself based on such a charge or based on you providing information to or cooperating with the EEOC.

OPTION TWO – INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH
Challenge to Validity, Truthful Testimony Under Oath and Cooperation with Government Agency: Nothing in this Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions in Sections ___, ____, ____, below (a) limits or affects your right to challenge the validity of this Agreement, including a challenge under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended; (b) interferes with your right and responsibility to give truthful testimony under oath; or (c) precludes you from participating in an investigation, filing a charge, or otherwise communicating with the Equal Employment Opportunity or state agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws. However, I promise never to seek or accept any damages, remedies or other relief for me personally with respect to any claims released in this Agreement.

There may not be a one-size-fits-all answer that is applicable in all situations, given the different risk tolerances and other interests that various companies may have, but all employers would do well to reevaluate their separation agreements with these considerations in mind.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.