NLRB Reverses Precedential Ruling on Severance Agreement Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality Provisions

February 27, 2023 Advisory

In a significant decision issued on Feb. 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed a three-year-old precedent by ruling that merely “proffering” a severance agreement restricting a non-supervisory employee’s right to speak about the terms of the agreement or disparage their former employer unlawfully “chills” the employees’ protected rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 protections apply to almost all workers regardless of whether a union exists (the law does not cover independent contractors, government employees, agricultural workers and supervisors).

In McLaren v. Macomb, the NLRB decided that the context in which the severance agreement was proffered is no longer relevant to its inquiry – the focus is now on the actual language included in the contract. The NLRB found that where severance is conditioned upon broad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions containing a release of claims on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the potential for coercion is heightened at a time when employees are facing job loss and particularly vulnerable; thus, such agreements violate Section 7 regardless of whether employers later seek to enforce them. The McLaren decision also mentioned that Section 7 rights extend to former employees, meaning that post-termination settlement agreements containing overly broad confidentiality and/or non-disparagement provisions are also likely to be deemed unlawful.

The severance agreements at issue in McLaren contained two significant—and common—clauses that the NLRB deemed unlawful: (1) a confidentiality provision that prohibited an employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so …”; and (2) a non-disclosure provision in which the employee agreed “not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.” The NLRB found both of these “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights.” As to the confidentiality restriction, the Board found the restriction on disclosure “to any third person” overbroad and thus coercive and tending to chill the exercise of Section 7 rights. As to the non-disparagement provision, the Board similarly found that this was an impermissible “comprehensive ban” in that it protected not just the employer, but also affiliated entities and people, and “would encompass employee conduct regarding any labor issue, dispute or term and condition of employment.” As such, the Board found it impermissibly prohibited employer critique and again created a chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights.

The McLaren decision does not outlaw all non-disparagement or confidentiality provisions; the NLRB suggested that “narrowly tailored” provisions may still be lawful. The NLRB decision did not define what might be considered “narrowly tailored,” though with respect to the non-disparagement clause it dropped a hint by noting that the agreement did not “cabin” the term “disparagement” “to its well-established NLRA definition under” a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court case. What is clear is that restrictions prohibiting employees from speaking with other employees, broadly “disparaging” a former employer, cooperating or filing a complaint with the NLRB, or provisions with an indefinite duration are off-limits.

Perhaps the biggest question remaining is what effect this ruling has on agreements that were executed prior to the McLaren decision. The NLRA contains a six-month statute of limitations, which means that an employer generally cannot be held liable for conduct that occurred more than 180 days before the filing of a charge. Remedies for unfair labor practices may include severing the offending provision (if the agreement contains a severability clause), rendering the contract voidable, payment of the offered severance amount to an employee who refused to sign the agreement, cease and desist orders and notice posting at the workplace.

The NLRB decision is consistent with the ongoing trend in labor and employment to regulate or restrict the terms of post-employment obligations in severance, noncompetition and nondisclosure agreements. It is expected that in the coming months, more concrete examples of lawful severance covenants will be released. Given this new ruling, now is a good time for employers to revisit their standard severance agreements and seek guidance from legal counsel. 


California Court of Appeals Decision Reminds Employers to Have Clear, Enunciated IT Systems Use Policy

Electronic communications are an indispensable component of business in today’s world. Every day, employees send emails, text messages and instant messages by the thousands through their corporate email systems and devices, not only for...

U.K. Government Announces Proposed Employment Law Changes

The U.K. government has announced a number of measures intended to reform employment laws post-Brexit. These are potentially important changes that would impact the law relating to non-competition clauses, holiday time and Transfer of...

NYC Publishes Final Rule on Use of Automated Employment Decision Tools

Earlier this month, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection published its Final Rule implementing provisions of the New York City Administrative Code (the Code) relating to the use of Automated...

Continued Economic Headwinds Force Mass Layoffs, Bring State and Federal WARN Laws into Focus

Distressed Bank Response Team

2023 Employment and Labor Midyear Review

Graphic for 2023 Employment and Labor Webinar

AI in the Workplace: Is Your Enterprise Intelligent About Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere—from chatbots that answer questions, draft essays and write code, to virtual assistants and self-driving cars. In the workplace, it is estimated that 99% of Fortune 500 companies use AI...

Deadline Approaching for Federal Contractors to Implement Disability Self-ID Form

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal government contractors to invite applicants and employees to self-identify as “an individual with a disability,” as defined. The Office of Federal Contract...

Illinois Enacts Mandatory Paid Leave Law for Workers

On March 13, 2023, Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker signed into law expansive paid leave entitlements for Illinois employees. The Paid Leave for All Workers Act (PLFAW Act) requires covered employers to establish a...

New York State Updates its Model Harassment Prevention Toolkit

By law enacted in 2018, New York State employers are required to provide all employees with annual sexual harassment training and to adopt a sexual harassment prevention policy that meets or exceeds specified minimum...

California Pay Transparency and Pay Data Reporting Law: Compliance Deadlines Fast Approaching

Following a wave of pay transparency laws across the nation, California recently enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1162, which imposes several obligations on California employers, including disclosure of pay ranges and certain pay data reporting...

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1250
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware