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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll