End of Bar on Non-disclosure Provisions in LAD Settlements: Why Both Sides Will Rejoice
Assembly Bill No. 4637 is an attempt to remedy the shortcomings of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a). It allows employees to decide for themselves whether being able to talk publicly and openly about allegations of discrimination against their employer is more important to them than being able to settle a case.
March 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Since 2019, New Jersey employers have had difficult decisions to make when confronted with lawsuits from employees alleging claims arising under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50 (the LAD). Specifically, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8, enacted on March 18, 2019, mandates in relevant part that "[a] provision in any … settlement agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment … shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable against a current or former employee … who is a party to the … settlement." See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a). This statute otherwise stipulates that if an employee were to "reveal[] sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable, then the non-disclosure provision shall also be unenforceable against the employer." See ibid.
Essentially, under this framework, it is completely within the discretion of the employee as to whether to abide by any confidentiality provisions included in settlement agreements resolving LAD claims, and, to the extent the employee chooses to talk about the underlying allegations of the lawsuit publicly such that the employer is identifiable, the employer would, in turn, be permitted to do so as well. This arrangement presents clear and extensive problems for employers seeking to settle LAD lawsuits brought against them by their employees. In many cases, employers choose to settle these lawsuits—whether the allegations are meritorious or patently frivolous—solely to avoid the negative publicity that they would suffer in the event details about the lawsuit were to be learned by the public. The employer typically has sufficient resources such that it could withstand a prolonged and costly litigation, more so than the plaintiff-employee.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250