Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

2023 DSIR Report Deeper Dive

2023 DSIR Deeper Dive: Pixel & Other Website Technologies

Edgar helps equity markets lobby Senate to increase ‘legal clarity’ of banking bill

Increasingly complex student-athlete NIL deals require multi-disciplinary counsel

Fernando Bohorquez named to NY Latino 100 for 2nd year in a row

<figure class="wp-block-image alignright size-large is-resized"><img decoding="async" src="https://employmentlawspotlight.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2022/08/Seattle-skyline-at-night-GettyImages-154947497_1200x630-682x358.jpg" alt="Skyline of Seattle by night" class="wp-image-5687" width="428"/></figure>



For years, employers have insisted that confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements be included in settlement agreements in a variety of employment disputes, such as discrimination, harassment, wage and hour, and others. 



The reasoning is straightforward enough: Companies want to protect their reputations, and confidentiality/nondisparagement provisions in settlement agreements have been a way to ensure that unhappy employees do not continue to make disparaging statements about their current or former employers after the parties’ disputes have resolved. However, these provisions became particularly controversial in the wake of the #metoo era, when employees alleged these agreements acted as a manner of silencing employees from disclosing gender discrimination and harassment.



In 2018, the Washington Legislature passed a law, codified as RCW 49.44.210, that prohibited nondisclosure agreements, waivers or other documents preventing employees from disclosing sexual harassment or sexual assault. The law did not, however, prohibit settlement agreements from containing confidentiality provisions. That is no longer the case.



Effective June 9, the Washington Legislature rescinded the 2018 law in favor of a far stricter restriction on confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements. The new law prohibits any agreement, including any settlement agreement, that bars employees from discussing almost any unlawful employment activity, not just sexual harassment or sexual assault. Specifically, the new law bars any provision “in an agreement by an employer and an employee not to disclose or discuss conduct, or the existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee reasonably believed under Washington state, federal or common law to be illegal discrimination, illegal harassment, illegal retaliation, a wage and hour violation, or sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy.”



The new law has a stiff penalty, allowing employees to bring a cause of action for actual or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Employers should be particularly cautious, as even requesting employees to sign such agreements (or requiring them to do so) is a violation of the statute.



Washington employers should contact BakerHostetler to ensure that they are fully complying with this new law.

core/freeform

Employment Law Spotlight

Seattle

Partner

James R. Morrison

Enterprise Issues

Labor and Employment

Washington Employers: Take Caution Before Asking Your Employees To Sign Confidentiality and Nondisparagement Agreements

Related Services

Featured Insights