Since worker non-disclosure obligations may only be included in transaction agreements in California or New York if they are repeated „at the request of the applicant“ or „of the applicant`s preference,“ employers in those states may be required to reassess their negotiating approach to workers complaining about the mutual willingness to confidentiality obligations in the transaction agreements. In many cases, staff are accessible to privacy rules for data protection or other reasons. In cases where the parties agree with confidentiality, New York employers should consider presenting and executing a separate confidentiality obligation of the worker before negotiating and executing the overall transaction agreement. In cases where the implementation of a separate agreement is not feasible, employers should check whether the FAQ directive is effectively compatible with New York law, which contains no separate obligation of agreement. If the parties agree that a separate agreement is not appropriate, the parties to an agreement in New York should consider a simple confirmation in the transaction agreement that confidentiality is the employee`s preference, that the employee had 21 days to verify confidentiality, and that the employee had 7 days to revoke it. While this decision clarifies whether counsel „intends to be bound to a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement,“ it is a fact, not a form, but the Supreme Court did not impose what would be necessary to show it. The Court noted, however, that the reference „to both the parties and their legal advisors“ in a given confidentiality provision may suffice. After reviewing the confidentiality provisions of the case before it, the Tribunal announced that provisions stipulating that „the applicants and their counsel agree that they will remain fully confidential all the terms and contents of the settlement agreement“ could be considered sufficient for a factual „to reasonably conclude“ that a lawyer is bound by the confidentiality provision. In light of the above, parties who wish to bask in the confidentiality of both the parties to the trial and their lawyers must endeavour to express this intention in their confidentiality rules. If the parties clarify this intention, then, according to the California Supreme Court, lawyers should not sign as „parties to the agreement“ because their signature, which approved the agreement in terms of form and content, would bind them.

For example, given the uncertainty as to whether Section 162 (q) of the Tax Reduction and Jobs Act 2017 applies to widespread release of claims, employers should consider adding a language to their transaction agreements to determine whether a portion of the consideration paid in a transaction constitutes „any billing or payment related to harassment or sexual abuse.“ If a worker has never asserted such a right, the employer may consider adding a confirmation that only a de minimis portion of a payment to the employee is eligible for the release of rights to sexual harassment or abuse. To the extent that a comparison involves the disclosure of allegations of sexual harassment or abuse, the employer may attempt to separate the payment to the employee for the settlement of claims of sexual harassment or abuse. Such an agreement allows the employer to require a worker`s duty of confidentiality, but also the employer to continue to deduct at least some of the billing costs from its federal taxes. A number of states have passed legislation to prohibit the application of confidentiality clauses in transaction agreements that shed light on allegations of sexual harassment, other forms of harassment or discrimination.