header-logo header-logo

30 October 2019
Issue: 7862 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Limits set on NDAs

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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll