This event has completed.

1/20/2022
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM

The NELA/NY Board and its Legislative Committee need your perspectives on potential legislation in New York to restrict non-disclosure agreements. This Town Hall will be held via  Zoom meeting.  Please note that will not issue CLE because we are hosting this event as a roundtable discussion, not a CLE presentation.
 
This event is the second of two NELA Nite sessions on the topic of NDAs. In this first session, we heard from lawyers in California and New Jersey about their experiences with their states’ recently-enacted laws restricting the enforcement of NDAs. A summary – and the full text - of both states’ statutes provided HERE.
 
This session will be your chance to talk with and listen to other NELA/NY members about whether NELA/NY should support amending our existing state law that governs NDAs, General Obligations Law section 5-336. That law, passed in 2018 concerning sexual harassment only - and amended in 2019 to apply to all claims of discrimination - makes an NDA impermissible unless the employee clearly indicates that the employee prefers to keep the terms of any settlement agreement confidential. Many of our members are not happy with how this law is working.
 
The Legislative Committee is exploring whether GOL 5-336 should be amended so that no employee is forced to sign an NDA to settle, while allowing those who want to keep their situation confidential to do so. We are hoping for a robust discussion of this important issue that will help the NELA/NY Board make an informed decision about what changes will best help us help our clients and employees generally.

Topics will include (suggestions welcome for other topics): 

• The pros and cons of confidential settlement agreements 
• NELA/NY members’ experiences with existing state law 
• For members who practice in New Jersey, their experiences with the NJ law
• With respect to FLSA cases, have defendants refused to settle because confidentiality is precluded by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015)? How have parties addressed concerns about privacy and/or reputation? 
• If NDAs should be limited, should they be: banned outright? allowed but unenforceable against employees only (NJ)? prohibited where claims have been publicly filed, but not pre-filing (CA)?