On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed the Dessenat Bill 121 Act, which prohibits confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements regarding workplace discrimination, retaliation or harassment. Possible remedies for violations of a restrictive agreement or confidentiality agreement include both fair and legal protection, which will be applied to a large extent on the basis of existing facts, the conduct of the parties and the employer`s strategic interests/needs. Tara L. Humma is a partner in the Litigation Department, which focuses on employment and employment issues. Tara advocates for clients at all stages of labour disputes, from initial arguments, discovery and movement practices to trial preparation and appeal. She represents employers at hearings before administrative authorities, arbitrators and auditors appointed in contractual appeal proceedings. Tara also regularly advises employers on various labour laws, civil servants` regulations and state and state collective agreements. An example could make it clearer. Suppose an employee with performance problems accuses her supervisor of sexual harassment. The manager denies sexually harassing the employee and the employer conducts a thorough investigation and finds that no harassment has taken place.
However, to avoid the cost of litigation and the possibility of embarrassing publicity, the employer agrees to rely on the employee. In exchange for a relatively nominal amount, she resigned and promised not to seek re-employment. The agreement contains an NDA. Could you circumvent that by including the agreement, which is governed by the law of another state? How does this law apply to work-reconciliation agreements? The doctrine of unavoidable disclosure is an ongoing development in the field of trade secret protection, which may apply to a worker to disclose the confidential information and trade secrets of a former employer to a competitor, even if there is no restrictive agreement. It is significant that the inevitable disclosure document does not prove that the former employee has actually removed trade secrets or that he actually wants to use trade secrets for the benefit of his new employer, or even use it.