ARTICLE
2 April 2019

New Jersey Enacts Ban On Non-Disclosure Provisions In Settlement Agreements Addressing Claims Of Discrimination, Retaliation And Harassment

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
Common employer practices related to employee claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation are now prohibited by law in New Jersey.
United States Employment and HR

Common employer practices related to employee claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation are now prohibited by law in New Jersey. Bill S121, signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy on March 18, 2019, and taking effect immediately, strictly prohibits employers from enforcing non-disclosure agreements entered into in connection with a settlement of any claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment, to the extent the settlement agreement seeks to conceal the details of the claim. In addition, the new law purports to render unenforceable any waiver of a substantive or procedural right relating to such claims in an employment contract.

The key statutory prohibition states:

A provision in any employment contract or settlement agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment . . . shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable against a current or former employee . . . .

The law does not appear to prevent the parties from agreeing to keep the amount of any settlement payment confidential, although this is not specifically addressed.

Note that the law requires employers to comply with provisions that have "the purpose or effect of concealing the details" relating to such claims, even though current or former employees cannot be bound. Employers are relieved of obligations under such confidentiality provisions only if the employee publicly discloses "sufficient details" of the claim such that the employer may be reasonably identified. The law requires any settlement agreement addressing claims of discrimination, retaliation or harassment to inform employees of this consequence by including a notice to this effect that is prominently placed and bolded in the agreement.

The law does offer some limitations to clarify its scope. The law specifies that an employee may still be bound by a confidentiality agreement preventing disclosure of proprietary information, which is defined as nonpublic trade secrets, business plans and customer information. The law also has no impact on restrictive covenants. And, perhaps most critically, the law applies only to contracts entered into, renewed, modified or amended on or after March 18, 2019, the effective date.

The law also provides that any provision in an employment contract waiving any substantial or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment is now against public policy, and thus, on its face, the law purports to prohibit employers from requiring employees to arbitrate claims of discrimination, retaliation and harassment. However, as with New York State's new law addressing sexual harassment, this provision appears to be pre-empted by federal law, and arbitrating such claims may be permissible under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More