305 Gangnamdaero, Seoul, Republic of Korea
+82-2-542-7760 +82-10-5440-0169
hwpark75@gmail.com

California Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause

Global Med-Biz Creator

California Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause

2 While the New York Law offers employers the opportunity to obtain a mandatory duty of confidentiality from their employees, there are still a number of procedural barriers necessary to satisfy the elements of the “plaintiffs` preference” exception. SB 1300 added to Section 12964.5 of the Government Code, which makes it an illegal employment practice to require an employer and a worker to sign the release of a right or right under the Fair Employment and Trade Law Act (FEHA). In addition, the law prohibits an employer from requiring a worker to sign a non-collective agreement or any other document that denies the worker the right to disclose information about illegal acts in the workplace, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment. The new law came into force on 1 January 2019. Effective 3109, adds California Civil Code Section 1670.11 to rescind any provision of a contract or settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019, that waives a party`s right to testify with respect to criminal conduct or sexual harassment by the other party or any settlement agreement entered into by the other party`s representatives or collaborators. The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause is not contrary to public policy, since it expressly excludes all disclosures “authorized by law”. The Landkreis also defended its disclosure to the media, arguing that it was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Tribunal stated, however, that the Landkreis had waived its rights to freedom of expression by accepting the confidentiality provision. The Landkreis then argued that the law required disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.), including disclosure of the agreement itself. However, no application was ever made.

If and as long as no formal application has been made, the General Court has stated that the Landkreis will be obliged to comply with the terms of the agreement and that any disclosure would constitute a countervailable breach. “Any person who, in the light of the actual commission of a crime, takes money or the property of another or a tip, reward or promise under an agreement or understanding, to aggravate or conceal that crime or to refrain from prosecution or to withhold evidence thereof, except in the cases provided for by law, in which crimes may be compromised by leave of court is punishable as follows:. . . .