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


POLITICAL: Excluding the “right” people

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102133.html

December 24, 2011Yes, Virginia —Posted by Charles Burris on December 24, 2011 12:55 PM

*** begin quote ***

Let the Virginia ballot disqualification experience of Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum, and Perry be an eye-opening object lesson to those dedicated supporters of Ron Paul who urge an independent or third party bid. The American electoral system is organized into fifty-two different sets of election laws (the federal laws and those of the 50 states and Guam). Each jurisdiction has entirely different ballot petition requirements for the Democrats and Republicans, as well as third party and independent presidential candidates.

These requirements are onerous, unduly burdensome, and chilling in their effect of squashing voters choosing candidates other than the Democrats and Republicans who draft and vigorously enforce these laws to protect their duopoly. I have been a litigant to several legal challenges to these restrictive laws in Oklahoma at the state and federal level, some cases reaching the United States Supreme Court.

*** end quote ***

So let’s understand this. Asking for id to vote is discriminatory excluding voters. But 50 or more ballot processes is OK.

It’s OBVIOUSLY OK, because it excludes the “right” people.

Participation by other than a “good kop / bad kop” candidate is VERY BAD to the status quo.

So the entrenched ruling class keeps the serfs down on the farm!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


JOBSEARCH: Another silent hazard in the job search

Friday, June 26, 2009

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12514244

Google recruiter: Company kept ‘do not touch’ in hiring list
By Steve Johnson, Elise Ackerman and Sue McAllister
Mercury News
Posted: 06/03/2009 07:00:44 PM PDT
Updated: 06/04/2009 10:14:46 AM PDT

*** begin quote ***

A recruiter who left Google last year says that the company had maintained a “do not touch” list of companies including Genentech and Yahoo, whose employees were not to be wooed to the Internet search giant.

That revelation could be significant in light of this week’s disclosure that the U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent.

Although Google declined to comment on the list or other aspects of the investigation, Palo Alto attorney Gary Reback, who has been involved in a number of high-profile antitrust cases, said having such a list is not unheard of and not necessarily illegal.

*** end quote ***

Argh!

Hard enough to get a job and the companies limit the opportunities.

A plague on all their houses.

# # # # #


POLITICS: Use Sotomayor as a proxy for Affirmative Action

Thursday, June 18, 2009

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100835

Miss Affirmative Action, 2009
Posted: June 12, 2009
Pat Buchanan

*** begin quote ***

Republican senators should use this Sotomayor nomination to put affirmative action in the dock for what it is – race-based bigotry against white males so that persons of color can receive the rewards of society that they could not win in free and fair competition.

Lay out the Sotomayor record – SAT scores, LSAT scores, bar exam score, law review articles and her opinions – so that we can see up close what those who eviscerated Robert Bork regard as academic and judicial excellence.

No need for name-calling.

*** end quote ***

Sorry, but in a lifetime job, we need the best.

Objectively, best. Not Subjectively.

We need to consign “Affirmative Action” to a time past when racism, even reverse racism, is unacceptable.

Something about “content of character; not the color their skin.”

# # # # #


JOBSEARCH: Turkeys must plan for “retirement” at 50!

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-retirement24-2009may24,0,885521.story

Early retirement claims increase dramatically

Instead of working longer as the economy worsens, more Americans are calling it quits before age 66. The ramifications could be profound for the retirees, families, government and social institutions.

By Mike Dorning

May 24, 2009

*** begin quote ***

Once they lose their jobs, older workers have a harder time finding new ones. On average, it takes laid-off workers 55 and older nearly a month longer than their younger counterparts to find new employment, and the gulf has been growing recently, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*** end quote ***

I’m much more skeptical than the BLS.

For turkeys (i.e., fat old white guys who had high paying jobs), they must plan, that when they lose their current job (as they surely will), for the contingency that thewill be unable to find another.

Ever!

Not one at a lesser pay. Not one that is “yuckier”. Not one that is “elsewhere”.

No, they may never find another one at all.

That has terrible ramifications.

That means at age 50 or later, what ever you have is all that you will ever get. That means at 50, you may never have health insurance again. That means at 50, you will begin to draw against your “pot of gold” (i.e., your total savings and investments).

You may have to be the Greeter at WalMart to permit yourself the luxury of dining on the expensive dog food.

You may, in fact, be on welfare and / or food stamps in your not-so “Golden Years”.

You may be “medically bankrupt” if you get sick without insurance.

Sacred yet. You should be.

Immediately, turkeys using my not-patented not-copyrighted formula for “job replacement interval” —

{For those, who aren’t aficionados of the Big Turkey’s methodology for calculating “job replacement interval”. Using my patented and copyrighted methodology, you can easily determine how many months YOU will need to find a new job. That is a function of: Annual Salary; the likelihood of a layoff in your company, industry, or skill set; the ease of finding another job in their skill set; their age; and the economy.}

— I’m adjusting the age penalty formula from (Less than 40 is 1; 41 to 49 is 2; 50 to 57 is 3; 57 and up is 4) to (Less than 40 is 1; 41 to 45 is 2; 45-50 = 4, 51-55=8, 51-55=16, 56-60=32, and 61 is 64).

Yes, after 56, I don’t think you can get another job again ever.

My formula may be wrong, but it should serve as a wake up call.

Plan as if there was no job to work at tomorrow. There may well not be.

# # # # #  


JOBSEARCH: Age discrimination? No, I find that hard to believe

Saturday, April 18, 2009

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/04/12/fired_workers_sue.html

ajc.com > Business
Laid-off workers increasingly turn to lawsuits
Government reports more claims of discrimination in job cuts
By TAMMY JOYNER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, April 12, 2009

*** begin quote ***

Eric Oliver was on vacation last summer when he learned that he and seven other white co-workers, all over the age of 40, had lost their jobs at a software company from India.

Attorney Sidney Holderness’ expertise in underwriting title insurance wasn’t enough to keep the 60-year-old from losing his job.

*** end quote ***

We as a society better figure out how to make use of “old workers”. And, stop wasting the first twenty five years as well.

We’re going to be living a lot longer and can’t afford to waste any human resource.

# # # # #


%d bloggers like this: