NLRB Limits Employers’ Use of Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Employment-Related Agreements and Policies
Employers have historically used non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions when resolving threatened or actual claims employees may pursue. The logic of proposing such clauses flows from the reasonable desire to bring as much closure to disputes as is possible. However, recent legal decisions have questioned whether and when such provisions may be permissible.
In McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held such provisions in severance agreements have a tendency to interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 rights include employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities. Notably, NLRA Section 7 rights cover non-supervisory employees whether or not they are represented by a union.
The NLRB’s General Counsel subsequently opined that confidentiality provisions are unlawful unless they are “narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications.” The General Counsel further suggested that non-disparagement clauses are prohibited unless “narrowly-tailored, justified,” and “limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.” Notably, the General Counsel’s opinion would broadly cover such clauses in other employment agreements, communications, and policies. While the General Counsel’s views do not have the force of law, they signal other challenges employers may face.
Given these developments, employers should review their employment and severance agreements and related policies with their counsel to evaluate any litigation risk.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held such provisions in severance agreements have a tendency to interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 rights include employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities. Notably, NLRA Section 7 rights cover non-supervisory employees whether or not they are represented by a union.
The NLRB’s General Counsel subsequently opined that confidentiality provisions are unlawful unless they are “narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications.” The General Counsel further suggested that non-disparagement clauses are prohibited unless “narrowly-tailored, justified,” and “limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.” Notably, the General Counsel’s opinion would broadly cover such clauses in other employment agreements, communications, and policies. While the General Counsel’s views do not have the force of law, they signal other challenges employers may face.
Given these developments, employers should review their employment and severance agreements and related policies with their counsel to evaluate any litigation risk.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Employers have historically used non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions when resolving threatened or actual claims employees may pursue. The logic of proposing such clauses flows from the reasonable desire to bring as much closure to disputes as is possible. However, recent legal decisions have questioned whether and when such provisions may be permissible.
In McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held such provisions in severance agreements have a tendency to interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 rights include employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities. Notably, NLRA Section 7 rights cover non-supervisory employees whether or not they are represented by a union.
The NLRB’s General Counsel subsequently opined that confidentiality provisions are unlawful unless they are “narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications.” The General Counsel further suggested that non-disparagement clauses are prohibited unless “narrowly-tailored, justified,” and “limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.” Notably, the General Counsel’s opinion would broadly cover such clauses in other employment agreements, communications, and policies. While the General Counsel’s views do not have the force of law, they signal other challenges employers may face.
Given these developments, employers should review their employment and severance agreements and related policies with their counsel to evaluate any litigation risk.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held such provisions in severance agreements have a tendency to interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 rights include employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities. Notably, NLRA Section 7 rights cover non-supervisory employees whether or not they are represented by a union.
The NLRB’s General Counsel subsequently opined that confidentiality provisions are unlawful unless they are “narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications.” The General Counsel further suggested that non-disparagement clauses are prohibited unless “narrowly-tailored, justified,” and “limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.” Notably, the General Counsel’s opinion would broadly cover such clauses in other employment agreements, communications, and policies. While the General Counsel’s views do not have the force of law, they signal other challenges employers may face.
Given these developments, employers should review their employment and severance agreements and related policies with their counsel to evaluate any litigation risk.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026