Finally, the county attempted to draw the former employee`s attention to her own disclosure of the facts and the contract to deal with her family and friends as a defence. However, the court found that once the county had violated the agreement, a jury could reasonably conclude that the applicant`s subsequent undertaking was excused in the confidentiality agreement. Since California law, which limits the enforceability of confidentiality provisions, only applies when a worker has filed a civil or administrative action, California employers should, if possible, assess the appropriateness of a settlement earlier. If a California employer is able to settle a right before a lawsuit begins, the employer will be much more flexible about workers` confidentiality obligations than after legal action begins. Since New Jersey employers cannot in any way guarantee their employees confidentiality obligations when settling claims of discrimination, retaliation and harassment, there is a risk of negative publicity related to such claims, even if the parties reach an agreement. As a result, New Jersey employers can assess with their lawyer the viability of their employees who may waive the New Jersey law prohibiting confidentiality and/or parties who choose the law of another state to govern the agreement, if there is a reasonable basis for such jurisdiction. Without the protection of a confidentiality provision, New Jersey employers should understand that their comparisons can be made public. In these cases, New Jersey employers must balance the recalculation of the pros and cons of the regulation with the risk of negative publicity. NOTE: This carve-out does not apply when a government agency or public official is partisan.
In these cases, the agreements cannot contain provisions that contain a confidentiality of the applicant`s identity. „Notwithstanding any other law, a provision of a 2019 contract or transaction agreement entered into on or after January 1 that waives the right of a party to testify in an administrative, legislative or judicial proceeding concerning criminal conduct or alleged sexual harassment on the part of the other party to the contract or contract of transaction or by the agents or employees of the other party is null and void.“ (All the accent is added). 1002. a) Notwithstanding other laws, a provision in a transaction agreement preventing the disclosure of factual information in connection with the action is prohibited in any civil action for which the legal basis creates a means of bringing a civil damages action for one of the following points: See also other whistleblower laws, other provisions of the Labour Code and laws on the notification of comparisons by licensed professionals. On March 18, 2019, New Jersey passed a law that stated that „a provision in each . . . . Transaction agreement with the purpose or effect of concealing details related to a right to discrimination, retaliation or harassment . .
. . . . against public order and unenforceable to a current or former employee … which is the party of. . Settlement of accounts. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 (a). New Jersey law goes beyond allegations of sexual harassment and encompasses all allegations of „discrimination, retaliation or harassment,“ encompassing a broader range of unlawful behavior regarding non-sexual forms of harassment and discrimination.
It is significant that the New Jersey law does not contain exceptions to this prohibition, which means that there are no circumstances under which an employer may engage it in confidentiality obligations in a settlement agreement of such rights. „[E], on a case-by-case basis, each court recognizes that a contract that violates its rules is not soured when a law has been enacted to protect the public.“ (emphasizing) (e) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section by requiring the inclusion of a provision in a transaction agreement preventing the disclosure of substantive information relating to the act described in the subdivision (a)