States Continue Crack Down on Nondisclosure Agreements
Time 4 Minute Read
States Continue Crack Down on Nondisclosure Agreements
Categories: Employment Law

Disfavor toward employer/employee nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) has been an increasingly popular sentiment expressed by state legislatures over the last few years, and 2022 has seen the trend continue.  Legislation in some states may void and make unenforceable certain employer/employee nondisclosure agreements; it may prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into such agreements; or it may outright prohibit employers from executing the agreements, for example in employment contracts and separation agreements.  Just over halfway through 2022, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, and Washington have issued or amended state laws voiding, prohibiting, or restricting employer/employee nondisclosure agreements.

Hawaii

In late 2020, Hawaii passed a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to execute nondisclosure agreements as a condition of employment, to the extent such agreement prevents the disclosure or discussion of sexual harassment or sexual assault that occurred in the workplace, at a work-related event, involved another employee, or involved the employer.  On July 12, 2022, Hawaii amended the 2020 law by adding language that outright prohibits employers from entering into covered nondisclosure agreements.  This amended law now not only prohibits covered nondisclosure agreements in employment contracts, but also in severance and settlement agreements.  While the law was likely passed with good intentions, it will most certainly have an impact on the amount employers are willing to pay for severance and settlement, as it restricts the value employers are permitted to seek in return for such payments. The Hawaii amendments are effective July 12, 2022.

Maine

On May 12, 2022, Maine passed a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees, interns, and applicants to enter into agreements whereby they waive or limit their right to report or discuss unlawful employment discrimination that occurred in the workplace or at work-related events.  Additionally, the law states that an employer “may not require an employee, intern, or applicant…to enter into a  settlement, separation or severance agreement” that limits, prevents, or prohibits the employee, intern, or applicant from reporting, testifying, or otherwise cooperating with law enforcement or other agencies in charge of enforcing anti-discrimination laws.  However, being mindful of the potential harm to employees caused by overly restrictive prohibitions on nondisclosure agreements, the Maine law permits employers to enter into settlement and severance agreements that prevent employees from disclosing factual information related to a claim of unlawful employment discrimination, provided that such nondisclosure provisions are obtained in exchange for, among other things, separate monetary consideration.  The Maine law is set to be effective as of August 8, 2022.

Oregon

Oregon state law, which permits nondisclosure agreements that prevent the disclosure of factual information related to a claim of discrimination or sexual harassment only when requested by the employee, was amended on March 24, 2022, effective January 1, 2023, to prohibit employers from making an offer of settlement conditioned on a request by the employee to include a covered nondisclosure provision.  Covered nondisclosure agreements that were not requested by the employee, or that were a condition of the employer’s offer of settlement, are deemed void and unenforceable.

Washington

Effective June 9, 2022, Washington state passed a law deeming void and unenforceable agreements between an employer and employee that prevent the employee from disclosing or discussing conduct the employee reasonably believed constituted a wage and hour violation or illegal discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or sexual assault that occurred at the workplace or a work-related event, involved another employee, or involved the employer.  The new law also prohibits discrimination or retaliation against employees who disclose protected information and prohibits employers from requiring employees to enter into an agreement with a provision that is prohibited by the law.  A violation of the law subjects employers to the greater of actual damages or $10,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

There is every reason to expect that states will continue enacting or enhancing prohibitions and limitations on nondisclosure agreements between employers and employees.  Accordingly, employers should work closely with employment counsel to ensure they are not executing employment, severance, or settlement agreements that run afoul of these prohibitions or limitations.

  • Senior Attorney

    Randy represents management in all aspects of employer-employee relations. Randy’s practice focuses on employment litigation in federal and state courts and administrative practice before the Equal Employment Opportunity ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 9 Minute Read

The trend of Delaware court decisions favoring policyholders continues with a favorable ruling in AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Company, et al. The Delaware trial court found that AMC’s settlement payment, made in the form of AMC shares valued at $99.3 million, qualified as a covered “Loss” under its directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policy. This ruling is noteworthy for a variety of reasons, particularly because it establishes that non-traditional forms of currency, like stock, can be a covered “Loss” under D&O policies.

Time 3 Minute Read

Last week, in Golden Bear Insurance Company v. 34th S&S, LLC, a Texas federal court held that an insurer had no duty to cover a personal injury judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limit. The holding reminds parties in Texas to carefully consider the most basic—and sometimes very particular—requirements surrounding Stowers demands.

Time 6 Minute Read

The Georgia legislature recently amended O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1, the statute that sets forth requirements for pre-answer settlement demands in motor vehicle personal injury cases, to temper use of such pre-answer settlement demands to set up bad faith failure-to-settle claims against insurers. These pre-answer demands are known as Holt demands based on the Georgia Supreme Court case of S. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267, 416 S.E.2d 274 (1992), which established that an insurer which fails to settle a claim for its insured—and is found to have done so negligently, fraudulently, or in bad faith—may be liable for damages in excess of the insurance policy limits.

Time 1 Minute Read

In a recent Client Alert, Hunton insurance partner Geoffrey Fehling discusses the impact of the California appellate court decision Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Co., where the court denied coverage under a directors and officers liability policy for a software developer’s $118 million settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve allegations that the company violated anti-kickback laws in designing and implementing sponsored alerts in electronic health records software. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page