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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll