Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Non-disparagement Provisions in Separation Agreements

By Travis N. Teare on October 22, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Top secret

Return to work procedures and vaccine mandates have consumed much of Human Resources’ attention over the past year. However, there are other areas of the law that employers should continue to monitor. For example, California recently passed Senate Bill 331 (“SB 331”) which limits an employer’s ability to use non-disparagement, non-disclosure, and confidentiality agreements. Specifically, SB 331 prohibits an employer from using language in a settlement agreement which prevents or restricts an employee’s ability to disclose facts in a lawsuit regarding:

  • An act of sexual assault;
  • An act of sexual harassment; or,
  • Generally, acts of workplace harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

SB 331 also makes it unlawful for an employer to include a provision in a separation agreement which prohibits an employee from disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace. Unlawful acts in the workplace are defined broadly as “information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct that the employee has reasonable cause to believe is unlawful.”

Of course, SB 331 only applies to employers in California. However, it serves as a good reminder for employers to review their separation agreements and goals of those agreements. For example, some employers may include a non-disparagement provision in their separation agreements that – while legally enforceable – has never been enforced. If this is the case, an employer might consider changing or deleting this language as it is superfluous. As another example, some employers may actually include a mutually enforceable non-disparagement provision which, in practice, will be invoked by the former employee much more often than by the employer. Again, an employer may want to revise this language.

Travis N. Teare

Travis focuses his practice on the representation of management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has represented management in front of various state and federal administrative agencies, as well as state and federal court. Travis advises and counsels management on…

Travis focuses his practice on the representation of management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has represented management in front of various state and federal administrative agencies, as well as state and federal court. Travis advises and counsels management on topics including leave management, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Travis further provides training to clients on a variety of issues including the interaction between the ADA and FMLA, sexual harassment, and workplace conduct. He has experience in litigation and public sector bargaining. Travis has worked for the State of Ohio’s Office of Collective Bargaining where he responded to unfair labor practice charges and assisted in grievance step hearings, mediations, and arbitrations.

Read more about Travis N. TeareEmailTravis's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor & Employment Law Navigator
  • Organization:
    Frantz Ward LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo