NEWJERSEY: Certain NDAs Unenforceable

Saturday, April 6, 2019

2019-Apr-06

https://www.srz.com/resources/new-jersey-passes-law-making-ndas-in-settlements-of.html

New Jersey Passes Law Making NDAs in Settlements of Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment Claims Unenforceable
Date April 5, 2019

On March 18, 2019, New Jersey passed a law rendering unenforceable certain provisions in employment contracts and settlement agreements that are “entered into, renewed, modified, or amended” on or after March 18, 2019. First, provisions in employment contracts that waive prospectively any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to claims of harassment, retaliation or discrimination are unenforceable. For example, under the law, jury trial waivers with respect to harassment, retaliation or discrimination claims in employment agreements will not be enforceable.

Second, the law renders nondisclosure provisions in agreements that have “the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” unenforceable against employees and former employees. If, however, the employee publicly reveals enough details about the claim that the employer is reasonably identifiable, then a nondisclosure provision is also unenforceable against the employer. Nondisclosure provisions will therefore only work to prevent the employer from disclosing the details of a claim, unless the employee publicly discusses the matter with enough detail that the employer is reasonably identifiable. In that case, the nondisclosure provision will have no effect. In every settlement agreement resolving an employee’s discrimination, retaliation or harassment claim, the employer must include a bold, prominently placed notice that states that “although the parties may have agreed to keep the settlement and underlying facts confidential, such a provision in an agreement is unenforceable against the employer if the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable.” The law does not prohibit employers from requiring their employees to sign non-competition provisions or provisions that protect proprietary and other confidential information.

The law also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who refuses to enter into an agreement containing a provision that is unenforceable under the new law. If an employer attempts to enforce such a provision, then the employer will be liable for the employee’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

New Jersey’s law is far more stringent than New York’s recent law limiting nondisclosure provisions. New York’s law prohibits nondisclosure provisions in settlements of sexual harassment claims, except when confidentiality is the claimant’s preference. The claimant has 21 days to consider whether confidentiality is the claimant’s preference. If it is, then, after the 21-day period, the parties must memorialize the claimant’s preference in a written agreement, which the claimant can revoke within seven days.[1] By contrast, New Jersey’s law applies to all forms of harassment, discrimination and retaliation prohibited by New Jersey law and deems all non-disclosure agreements with respect to such claims unenforceable.

Authored by Mark E. Brossman and Holly H. Weiss.

# – # – # – # – #

Isn’t this interesting?  

Wonder if it applies to politicians and bureaucrats?

Be nice to know who in “public service” is screwing around!

Wonder how that slipped through?

# – # – # – # – # 2019-Apr-06 @ 13:23


RANT: Why I don’t pledge!

Saturday, April 6, 2019

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:27 AM Thomas Briscoe wrote:

Begin forwarded message:
From: <Richard Prezioso>
Date: Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM
To: <tennistitan>
Subject: Fwd: Yes Or No

Begin forwarded message:

From: Walter Olsewski 
Date: April 4, 2019 at 2:17:27 PM EDT
To: “Robert J. Byrnes” 
Subject: Re: Yes Or No

I vote yes. 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:04 PM Robert J. Byrnes <byrnesrj@optonline.net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:
From: Ben J 
Date: April 3, 2019 at 8:56:25 AM EDT
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: Fwd: Yes Or No

This vote only requires you to forward it to someone else for it to be counted.

As many of you are aware, the Knights of Columbus submitted to congress that the words “Under God” should be added to our pledge of allegiance.  Both Houses of Congress passed the law and it was signed by President Eisenhower in 1954.  The information below was based on a poll taken by NBC on what percentage should keep the words in our pledge versus the percent who want it removed.

If you read this and agree that “under God” should be left in the pledge, then just forward it to others and you have voted for it to be left in.  If you delete it and don’t forward it you are voting NO to “under God…”  Easy, huh?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

86% to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance and 14% against.  That is a pretty commanding’ public response.

Why should our Nation cater to 14%?

If you agree, pass this on. If not, simply delete.

# – # – # – # – #
# – # – # – # – #

 

MY RESPONSE:

Sorry, but “no”.

If one, as a citizen, pledges “allegiance”, then one assumes that there is some type of “social contract”.  In order for there to be a “contract”, Judge Judy says there has to be a meeting of the minds and considerations exchanged.  The State, in return for my allegiance, is supposed to protect me from aggression.  Yet, in its own courts, <<<Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) >>> held that the Government police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

Hence, I think the current Gooferment has violated the terms of any “social contract”.   It has also, with reckless disregard, exceeded its Consititutional limitations.  

Therefore, I refer to Lysander Spooner  — 

“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), No Treason (1870) http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6 

 — that it’s time for a “revolution” to put the evil genie BACK in the bottle or Pandora’s box.

I do NOT consent.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

All this being sad, I’m too old and weak to to fight the Leviathan State alone.  But that doesn’t mean I have to go along willing “when they load us on the trains to the camps.”

From my cold dead hands.
Crazy Old Ferd

# – # – # – # – #
# – # – # – # – #

TO MY OLD HIGH SKRULE CHUM WHO SENT THIS TO ME, I INCLUDED:

P.S.: “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?” Paul Scofield as Thomas More in “A Man for All Seasons” (1966)

# – # – # – # – #

And, when it’s said, or the National Anthem is sung, I’ll stand respectfully to all the women and men who died, or spilled their blood, to protect the ideals of the nation.  They may have been misguided, deceived by politicians and bureaucrats, and betrayed by their fellow countrymen, but they deserve my respect for their sacrifice. I am morally responsible for these casualties happening. 

# – # – # – # – # 2019-Apr-05 @ 13:48


%d bloggers like this: