« Panel: The Jurisprudence and Legacy of Justice Ginsburg | Main | Still getting jurisdictionality wrong »

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

NDAs and racial discrimination

I've posted in the past about how NDAs and the increased secrecy at work has not only silenced employees in general, but also specifically hurt women and prevented them from speaking up against systemic patterns of hostile work environment and harassments. The Wall Street Journal today has a well-researched article about how racial discrimination claims have also been silenced by the use of NDAs. I am quoted in the article, in particular about the enforceability of these clauses and how, regardless of enforceability, they have a chilling effect on speech.

Posted by Orly Lobel on October 20, 2020 at 09:35 PM | Permalink

Comments

Racism must stop lets spread love not hatred!

Posted by: King Video Production | Nov 3, 2020 7:22:09 AM

This is very awful I hate this kind of discrimination

Posted by: Painter Austin Texas | Nov 2, 2020 8:56:31 PM

Discrimination is really not healthy on our environment Find Out More

Posted by: Nana's Holiday | Nov 1, 2020 8:00:10 PM

If you're being harassed just quickly resign and find another decent job. Don't worry about speaking up and losing your job. You can always find a job. There's so much opportunity around you, just don't be lazy to find and grab one.

Posted by: sonoma website design | Oct 23, 2020 5:41:32 AM

That is why whenever I apply for office based jobs I always check the working environment, the boss and the employees. If the place is very unwelcoming, I don't sign the contract sonoma website design

Posted by: Lory Cruz | Oct 23, 2020 5:38:53 AM

OMG. So chilling.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Oct 21, 2020 5:15:05 AM

Interesting issue. Reminds me, the case of Ashley Amaris v. The Mayor and city council of Baltimore(fourth circuit). I quote from the ruling, what is all about:

"When the city of Baltimore has settled civil-rights lawsuits alleging police misconduct, it has typically required settling claimants to agree to a “non-disparagement clause,” under which they promise not to speak to the media about either their underlying allegations or the settlement process itself. Claimants who breach the non-disparagement clause are, by the terms of the clause, liable to Baltimore for damages equaling half of their settlement funds. Ashley Overbey, a police-misconduct claimant who settled her case but then spoke about it publicly, claims that Baltimore violated her First Amendment rights when it enforced the non-disparagement clause against her. Separately, a local news website, the Baltimore Brew (the Brew), claims that Baltimore’s alleged practice of including non-disparagement clauses in virtually all settlement agreements with police misconduct claimants violates the First Amendment on its face. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on both claims. For the reasons that follow, we reverse."

Here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/172444.P.pdf

Posted by: El roam | Oct 21, 2020 4:43:08 AM

Post a comment