header-logo header-logo

Limits set on NDAs

30 October 2019
Issue: 7862 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail
Clarity & transparency sought in face of cover-up culture

Employers are to be blocked from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to cover up sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, the government has confirmed.

The government’s response, published this week, to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s June report on NDAs states that it ‘agrees with the committee that it is unacceptable’ that such cases are hidden by confidentiality clauses and NDAs. While there is a ‘legitimate place’ for NDAs in employment contracts and settlement agreements, the government says, ‘using these agreements to silence and intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination cannot be tolerated’.

The government proposes to legislate so that: no NDA provision can prevent disclosures to the police, regulated health and care professionals and legal professionals; limitations in NDAs are clearly set out in employment contracts and settlement agreements; and to enhance the independent legal advice given to individuals signing NDAs.

It will also produce guidance for lawyers on drafting settlement agreements, and introduce enforcement measures for NDAs that do not comply with legal requirements.

Beth Hale, partner and general counsel at employment law firm CM Murray, said: ‘The government is not, as indicated in some headlines, proposing to ban the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment.

‘Rather, they are focusing on the important issue of clarity and transparency for those signing such agreements and ensuring that the employment tribunal process is more user-friendly and accessible for individuals. Legislation will be introduced to ensure that all NDAs specify their limitations so that people understand what they are (and are not) prevented from disclosing―this will provide welcome clarity for all parties to NDAs.

‘The proposed changes, when combined with the likely introduction of a mandatory duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, provide significantly improved protections for individuals. It remains to be seen what happens to these proposals given the ongoing political upheaval. More than two years since the #MeToo movement began, we are still waiting for much needed legislative change in this area.’

Issue: 7862 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Corporate and commercial teams in Cardiff boosted by dual partner hire

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

London hires to lead UK launch of international finance team

Switalskis—11 promotions

Switalskis—11 promotions

Firm marks start of year with firmwide promotions round

NEWS
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The next generation is inheriting more than assets—it is inheriting complexity. Writing in NLJ this week, experts from Penningtons Manches Cooper chart how global mobility, blended families and evolving values are reshaping private wealth advice
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming sport, from recruitment and training to officiating and fan engagement. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys at Law explains how AI now influences everything from injury prevention to tactical decisions, with clubs using tools such as ‘TacticAI’ to gain competitive edges
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll