Choosing Substance Over Form: New Jersey Supreme Court Declares That Non-Disclosure Clauses Masquerading as Non-Disparagement Provisions Are Banned

Since certain amendments in 2019, it has been widely recognized that Section 10:5-12.8 of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8) prohibits non-disclosure provisions in employment agreements or employee settlement agreements if those provisions “ha[ve] the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” that could be disclosed by the current or former employee.

What was slightly less apparent until recently was whether other restrictive contractual clauses labeled as “non-disparagement” provisions are enforceable, even if they have a similar effect on an employee’s permitted speech.

This precise issue was examined and determined resoundingly in May 2024 by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Savage v. Twp. of Neptune matter. This case involved a former police sergeant’s (Christine Savage) sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims against the Neptune Township police department. In settling these claims, the parties’ agreement included a broad but generic non-disparagement clause.

Shortly after settlement, Ms. Savage gave a television news interview during which she stated, among other things, that the defendants had “abused [her] for eight years.” The defendants then moved to enforce the agreement on the ground that Ms. Savage’s statements violated her non-disparagement clause. Ms. Savage disagreed with the defendants’ reading of the agreement in this regard, asserting instead that the non-disparagement clause was unenforceable under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8.

Finding in Ms. Savage’s favor, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, unanimously, that any contractual provision that curtails an employee’s ability to speak about the details of their discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim, whether or not labeled as a non-disclosure clause, violates the broad prohibitions of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8.

In reaching this determination, the Court focused on the plain language of the statute that bars “a provision…which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment (hereinafter referred to as a ‘non-disclosure’ provision).” Noting that the law’s “critical language” does not tether the statute’s restrictions to a particular type of contractual clause, the Court observed that the invocation of a “non-disclosure provision” in the law is nothing more than a shorthand reference informed only by the definition proffered in the statute itself. Thus, it covers all contractual restrictions that may limit an employee’s ability to speak freely about their claims, whether the clause is labeled as a non-disclosure provision or otherwise.

The Court also pointed out that the law’s legislative history reflects that the primary purpose of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 was to stop discriminatory and harassing conduct by ensuring that victims could discuss their claims even if they settle them. Therefore, any contractual limitation on that ability violates the intent of the law. Finally, the court also held that the attempt to salvage a prohibited non-disparagement clause by carving out statements by the employee “related to other proceedings including lawsuits” is futile. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated “[s]urvivors of discrimination and harassment have the right to speak about their experiences in any number of ways, and they can no longer be restrained by confidentiality provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements.” Thus, is it insufficient merely to allow an employee to speak about their claims in other proceedings. They must be permitted to speak about them in all forums.

In the wake of the Savage decision, employers in New Jersey should review their standard employment and settlement agreements to make sure that there are no non-disclosure obligations hidden in other clauses. In particular, they should consider their non-disparagement provisions to make sure that they do not inadvertently curtail speech that is protected by N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8. Moreover, as New Jersey’s law is not unique, and there is an ever-growing list of states with some restriction on non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses, employers across the country should consider and be ready to confront these same issues.

Declaração de exoneração de responsabilidade

Este blogue é disponibilizado por Foley & Lardner LLP ("Foley" ou "a Firma") apenas para fins informativos. Não se destina a transmitir a posição jurídica da Sociedade em nome de qualquer cliente, nem a prestar aconselhamento jurídico específico. As opiniões expressas neste artigo não reflectem necessariamente a posição da Foley & Lardner LLP, dos seus sócios ou dos seus clientes. Por conseguinte, não actue de acordo com esta informação sem procurar aconselhamento junto de um advogado licenciado. Este blogue não se destina a criar, e a sua receção não constitui, uma relação advogado-cliente. A comunicação com a Foley através deste sítio Web, por correio eletrónico, publicação no blogue ou outro, não cria uma relação advogado-cliente para qualquer assunto jurídico. Por conseguinte, qualquer comunicação ou material que transmita a Foley através deste blogue, seja por correio eletrónico, publicação no blogue ou qualquer outra forma, não será tratado como confidencial ou proprietário. A informação neste blogue é publicada "COMO ESTÁ" e não se garante que seja completa, exacta ou actualizada. A Foley não faz representações ou garantias de qualquer tipo, expressas ou implícitas, quanto ao funcionamento ou conteúdo do sítio. A Foley renuncia expressamente a todas as outras garantias, garantias, condições e representações de qualquer tipo, expressas ou implícitas, quer surjam ao abrigo de qualquer estatuto, lei, utilização comercial ou de outra forma, incluindo garantias implícitas de comercialização, adequação a um determinado fim, título e não infração. Em nenhuma circunstância a Foley ou qualquer um dos seus parceiros, oficiais, funcionários, agentes ou afiliados serão responsáveis, direta ou indiretamente, sob qualquer teoria da lei (contrato, delito, negligência ou outra), perante si ou qualquer outra pessoa, por quaisquer reclamações, perdas ou danos, diretos, indirectos, especiais, incidentais, punitivos ou consequenciais, resultantes ou ocasionados pela criação, utilização ou confiança neste site (incluindo informações e outros conteúdos) ou quaisquer sites de terceiros ou as informações, recursos ou materiais acedidos através de tais sites. Em algumas jurisdições, o conteúdo deste blogue pode ser considerado publicidade de advogados. Se aplicável, tenha em atenção que resultados anteriores não garantem um resultado semelhante. As fotografias destinam-se apenas a fins de dramatização e podem incluir modelos. As imagens não implicam necessariamente o estatuto atual de cliente, parceiro ou empregado.