Two Can Keep a Secret… If the Contract Holds Up: How to Use Non-Disclosure Covenants in the #MeToo Era

01 July 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Jessica Glatzer Mason

The non-disclosure provision of a routine employment settlement agreement has typically been a common and easily agreed-upon term of resolution.  These provisions—where the employer and employee agree not to publicly discuss the reasons for the employee’s separation or the terms of the agreement—provide a key benefit to both parties. 

Employers can settle meritless claims to protect their reputation and keep allegations out of the public eye, while employees can be assured their complaint won’t follow them to later jobs. However, the #MeToo era has spawned a slate of recent measures that are making confidentiality provisions harder to use.  Since the #MeToo movement gained traction, companies that have used confidentiality clauses, including clauses with heavy financial penalties for breach, have experienced a backlash. Some of these companies have been derided as using unequal bargaining power to stifle public discourse about these issues.  

This criticism first gained the attention of the media and was quickly followed by legislators.  Several states, as well as the federal government, have placed these provisions in the crosshairs, putting at risk the legitimate business benefit these clauses can provide both parties.  For example, the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminates the tax deductibility of a sexual harassment settlement if a non-disclosure is included.  

Likewise, several states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington, and others, have passed laws limiting or restricting the use of non-disclosure covenants, such as through requiring informed consent or eliminating enforceability of blanket confidentiality provisions signed before the particular dispute arose.  

In this legislative landscape, however, all is not lost, and non-disclosure provisions can still be used if employers take an informed and thoughtful approach. 

The question then becomes:  How to properly and lawfully use a legitimate non-disclosure covenant in employee settlement agreements?  These guiding concepts can help navigate the minefield: 

  • When using a non-disclosure provision in a settlement agreement, use language that establishes the claimant has been informed and intentionally desires and consents to the provision;
  • Use liquidated damages provisions sparingly and ensure the amount is reasonable—if the amount is so high that the claimant could not realistically make the payment, it can be viewed as a penalty and rejected, and the entire covenant can be voided; 
  • Expressly carve out the claimant’s rights to speak freely to any government agency, such as the EEOC, SEC, NLRB, or OSHA, relating the claimant’s own claim or on behalf of another; 
  • Ensure confidentiality provisions relating to the employer’s confidential and trade secret business information are addressed separately—these promises are still enforceable and highly valuable, regardless of the type of claim; and 
  • Regularly review and revise your forms to stay on top of federal, state, and local laws—a provision that was compliant a year ago may not pass muster today. 

Non-disclosure covenants can still be used to settle employment disputes and can offer meaningful benefits to both employer and employee.  However, if used incorrectly, the covenant can be voided and potentially upset the entire settlement.  Stay up-to-date on the latest rules and carefully craft these once-boilerplate provisions so that the parties can effectively and privately resolve employment claims. 

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

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ