Employment in Financial Services

If the person concerned is subject to “fit & proper” authorisation from the NBB (see question 2), a form must be filed with the NBB to inform it of the termination.

Furthermore, the settlement agreement cannot include payments that would not respect the caps for remuneration and termination indemnities (see question 7).

Finally, job security clauses have been negotiated at a sectoral level, meaning a specific procedure must be followed for individual or collective dismissal under JC No. 310, with a sanction of six to nine months’ remuneration.

As a legal requirement, it is necessary to issue the term of termination of the employment contract. This document specifies the amounts paid at that time (there is a difference between terminations for just cause and without cause).

For workers in the sector, general rules apply, as no specific rules are created by law or a collective instrument.

The general law regarding dismissals applies to employees in the financial services sector. Under French law, there are two grounds for dismissal: personal reasons, which are related to the employee's behaviour or state of health; and economic reasons, which are not related to the employee. In both cases, the cause must be real and serious (ie, the reason must be objective and materially verifiable, as well as proportionate to the facts put forward). Failing that, the judge may propose the reinstatement of the employee, but if one of the parties refuses, then the employee is entitled to compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause, the latter depending on the employee's seniority.

Certain grounds for dismissal are null and void, in particular dismissals that are discriminatory or contrary to a fundamental freedom. The employee may then be reinstated (in very specificcases) or compensated, but this compensation may not be less than six months' salary.

Dismissal for personal reasons cannot be declared before a preliminary interview with the employee and must be notified at least two working days after this interview, unless otherwise stipulated by collective bargaining agreement. For example, the national collective bargaining agreement for the banking industry stipulates that the preliminary interview cannot take place less than 7 calendar days, except in the case of more favourable legal provisions or specific arrangements (e.g. inaptitude), from the date of first presentation to the employee of the letter of summons (article 26).

Dismissal for economic reasons may be individual or collective. Individual dismissals for economic reasons also require a prior interview and notification of redundancy, but above all notification to the Administration. Collective dismissals for economic reasons require consultation of the Social and Economic Committee, as well as the establishment of an employment protection plan if the termination concerns at least 10 employees within 30 days.

Since 1 July 2010, the FMA's General Regulation requires investment service providers to pass an examination to obtain certification. This certification must be obtained within six months of hiring, so not securing this certification by the end of this period may justify a dismissal.

A dismissal means a redundancy payment is excluded, except in the case of employment protection plans, from assessment for social security contributions for the portion not subject to income tax within certain exemption limits. In addition, article L.511-84-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code excludes the variable portion of compensation that may be reduced or recovered as a penalty under the "clawback" mechanism from assessment for severance pay.

Employment relationships with risk-takers of significant institutions whose annual fixed remuneration exceeds three times the contribution assessment ceiling for general pension insurance can be terminated more easily, in return for a severance payment, even if a unilateral dismissal is not socially justified. For this purpose, the institution needs to file a motion to the labour court to terminate the employment relationship during an ongoing dismissal protection dispute. The court will then terminate the employment relationship and award a severance payment of up to 12 months‘ salary.

Where employers wish to amicably terminate an employment relationship, they will usually offer a termination agreement that provides for a severance payment as consideration for the job loss. Severance payments offered by institutions under the German Banking Act are, in principle, treated as variable remuneration from a regulatory perspective. Unless certain exceptions and privileges apply, this means that severance payments are subject to the regulatory remuneration rules that apply to variable remuneration, meaning that, for example, the bonus cap and ex-post risk adjustment mechanisms of IVV apply (section 5 paragraph 6 sentence 1 IVV). Exceptions are permissible, inter alia, if severance payments are granted in line with the company’s general policy on severance payments, payments to which there is a legal entitlement, and severance payments to be made based on a final judgment or court settlement.

There are no particular rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. The termination procedures will follow the requirements under the Employment Ordinance and the contractual terms of the employment contract. In certain cases (eg, termination of senior executives), the parties may enter into a mutual release and settlement agreement.

The licensed corporations should notify the regulators of any changes, including cessation of appointment of the licensed representative and responsible officer or managers-in-charge of core functions, within seven business days. In the case of registered institutions, the notification should be made to both the SFC and the HKMA.

Under section 64R of the IO, within 14 days after the day on which an authorised insurer, a licensed insurance agency or a licensed insurance broker company (collectively, “Appointing Principal”) terminates the appointment of a licensed insurance agency, a licensed individual insurance agent, a licensed technical representative (agent), a licensed technical representative (broker) or a responsible officer (as the case may be), then the Appointing Principal should notify the IA in writing of the termination.

The general legal standards on termination of employment are also applicable to employees in the financial services sector. India is not an “at-will” jurisdiction but is also not an “employment-for-life” jurisdiction. In general, termination of employment may be carried out for reasonable cause or on account of misconduct. In cases of termination on any ground other than misconduct, the employee must be provided with prior notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof. The body of laws that govern employee rights around termination are the IDA, state-specific shops and establishments acts, standing orders, and the employment contract. Workmen (basically non-managers) have additional protection in terms of the right to retrenchment compensation when terminated.

Where possible it is important to try to resolve any outstanding issues that a PCF has or may have before the PCF's contract is terminated. An RFSP is required to give details of the circumstances of a PCF's termination of employment and to confirm whether or not there are outstanding issues regarding the PCF.

It is important to ensure that there are adequate provisions to govern the following in any settlement agreement or termination arrangements:

• adequate handover of operational responsibility;
• continued co-operation on operational matters within the employee's knowledge or in relation to matters that may subsequently be investigated by the CBI;
• secure return of all company property including any personal data; and
• post-termination confidentiality obligations and any other necessary post-termination restrictions.

Terminating an employee’s employment must occur in accordance with the terms of their contract, otherwise the employer risks a claim for wrongful dismissal.

Additionally, financial institutions have certain notification obligations to the IoM FSA as outlined in question 10. Where a settlement agreement is entered into in respect of the exit of an employee and a factor in their departure is a disciplinary issue, the IoM FSA will usually wish to know the terms of, and circumstances leading to, the settlement agreement. In particular, the IoM FSA will want to understand whether the reason for the termination was a systemic failure on the part of the financial institution or an issue with the individual and their capability or conduct. The settlement agreement cannot prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure and must not require the employee to warrant that they have not made a protected disclosure.

Under the Constitution and the FLL, an employee has the right to secure employment (employment stability right) and an employer cannot terminate an employment contract without legal cause.

An employer may only dismiss an employee under one or more of the legal causes provided for in article 47 of the FLL (eg, lack of ethics, dishonesty, violence, harassment, absence more than three times in a month without authorisation, disobedience, and intoxication). Dismissal should be carried out within the one month after the employer becomes aware of the legal cause for termination (statute of limitations).

The FLL requires employers to provide the employee with a written notice of dismissal in which the date and causes are expressly described. A lack of written notice makes the termination unlawful and triggers the severance obligation described below.

In addition, financial entities may end the employment of individuals without notice in the following circumstances:

• if a general manager or officer no longer complies with the legal requirements to occupy their position (see question 2);
• if the CNBV or the CNSF, as applicable, disqualifies, removes, or relieves individuals from their positions; and
• if a brokerage house’s proxies are no longer authorised by the CNBV.

If there are no legal grounds to justify the termination and an employee is dismissed, the dismissal is wrongful and the employee has the right to:

• be reinstated (article 49 of the FLL establishes the cases where an employer is exempt from reinstating an employee, for example employees of trust); or
• a severance payment (three months of salary, plus 12 days of salary for each year of service capped at twice the general minimum wage of the geographic area where the employee rendered services, plus 20 days of salary per year of service, and, if applicable, back pay.

These obligations are only enforceable (reinstatement and payment of severance) if the dismissal is deemed wrongful by the labour authorities in their corresponding resolution. Nevertheless, if there are no legal grounds that justify the termination, it is common practice to pay the severance in advance if there is no intention to reinstate the employee after termination.

When termination occurs, financial entities must inform the self-regulated bodies to revoke powers of attorney within five days. The self-regulated body must then inform the CNBV of the revocation. For the removal or resignation of the general manager and officers, financial entities must inform the corresponding authority within five to ten days, depending on the type of financial entity.

For the termination of employment of employees in general positions, there is no particular document to execute other than a termination document (resignation or employment termination agreement and release).

There are no particular rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of financial services employees.

Please see question 7 for more information on severance payments.

Depending on the employee concerned, the MAS may have to be notified of an employee ceasing to hold an office or to act as a representative (see questions 2, 4 and 11). Termination-related benefits and remuneration may also require disclosure (see question 7).

Apart from this, there are no industry-specific rules or protocols applicable to terminations. Singapore’s Employment Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, of general application to all employers, also prescribe rules concerning notice periods, the timing of final payments, and circumstances in which a termination may be wrongful, among other things.

There are no specific rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. However, because changes in the strategic and executive management of, in particular, regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are subject to a prior authorization by FINMA, the timing of termination and re-hiring of particular persons should be considered.

The general rules on the termination of an employment relationship apply under Swiss law: any employment contract concluded for an indefinite period may be unilaterally terminated by both employer and employee, subject to the contractual or (if no contractual notice period was agreed) statutory notice periods for any reason (ordinary termination).

The termination notice needs to be physically received before the notice period can start, meaning the notice needs to be received by the employee before the end of a month so that the notice period can start on the first day of the next month. If notice is not received before the end of the month, the notice period would start the month following the receipt of the notice. A termination notice might be either delivered by mail or personally.

Swiss law does not provide for payment in lieu of a notice period. The only option in this regard is to either send the employee on garden leave or to agree within the termination agreement to terminate the employment relationship per an earlier termination date than the one provided for in the termination notice.

As a general rule, an employment contract may be terminated by either party for any reason. However, Swiss statutory law provides for protection from termination by notice for both employers and employees, distinguishing between abusive and untimely notices of termination.

Based on social policy concerns, the employer must observe certain waiting periods, during which a notice cannot validly be served (so-called untimely notice). Such waiting periods apply (art. 336c CO), for example, during compulsory military or civil defence service, full- or part-time absence from work due to illness or an accident, or during an employee’s pregnancy and 16 weeks following the birth of the child. Any notice given by the employer during these waiting periods is void. Any notice given before the respective period is effective, but once the special situation has occurred and for the period it lasts, the running of the applicable notice period is suspended and only continues after the end of the period in question.

In addition, Swiss civil law defines certain grounds based on which terminations are considered abusive (article 336 CO). Termination by the employer might be considered abusive (eg, if it is based on a personal characteristic of the other party (eg, gender, race, age), or if the other party exercises a right guaranteed by the Swiss Federal Constitution (eg, religion or membership in a political party) unless the exercise of this right violates an obligation of the contract of employment or is seriously prejudicial to the work climate). If the employer abusively terminates the employment contract, the employer has to pay damages to the employee and a penalty of up to six months' remuneration (article 336a CO). Nevertheless, an abusive termination remains valid.

Regarding settlement agreements, Swiss employment law allows the conclusion of such agreements, but there are strict limits on the parties’ freedom of contract. Termination agreements may not be concluded that circumvent statutory provisions on employee protection. According to Swiss case law, termination agreements are usually valid and enforceable if both parties make real concessions, and if the agreement is also favourable for the employee. To conclude a termination agreement initiated by the employer, the employee must also be granted a sufficient reflection period. No further formalities need to be observed when concluding termination agreements, although it is generally advisable to have them in writing.

As noted in question 7, the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised persons.  In this regard, both sets of guidance provide that where an authorised entity provides discretionary payouts on termination of employment (either by way of severance payments, or other payments, such as “golden parachutes”), these should be subject to appropriate limits or shareholder approval.  In addition, they should be aligned with the firm’s overall financial status and performance.

Settlement agreements

The whistleblowing measures outlined above are complemented by mandatory requirements for SM&CR firms concerning settlement agreements, namely that any such agreement must include a term stating that it doesn’t prevent the individual from making a protected disclosure, and must not require the individual to warrant that they have not made a protected disclosure or that they do not know of any information which could lead to them doing so (a “protected disclosure” is a type of disclosure recognised in English employment law that gives the person making it legal protection from retaliatory detrimental treatment).

SM&CR firms entering into settlement agreements must also ensure that they are not drafted in a way that is incompatible with other relevant regulatory requirements. For example, there is a specific prohibition in the FCA Handbook on firms entering into any arrangements or agreements with any person that limit their ability to disclose information required by the regulatory reference rules (see question 2). As such, terms relating to confidentiality and the provision of employment references should allow the firm sufficient flexibility to comply with regulatory reference requirements, which could include a requirement to update such a reference. In addition, any obligations of confidentiality should include a carve-out to permit relevant regulatory disclosures and reports.

Handover procedures

The SM&CR includes requirements designed to ensure that adequate handovers take place between outgoing and incoming senior managers. Firms must take all reasonable steps to ensure that senior managers (and anyone who has management or supervisory responsibilities for them) have all the information and material that they could reasonably expect to have to perform their responsibilities effectively and under the requirements of the regulatory system. This applies when someone becomes a senior manager and when an existing senior manager takes on a new job or new responsibilities (or when their responsibilities or job are being changed).

Firms must have a handover policy in place to ensure compliance with these requirements. They must also make and maintain adequate records of steps taken to comply with them.

The information and material handed over should be practical and helpful, with an assessment of what issues should be prioritised, and judgement and opinion as well as facts, figures and records. It should also include details about unresolved or possible regulatory breaches and any unresolved concerns expressed by the FCA, the PRA or any other regulatory body.

The format and arrangements of a handover should allow for an orderly transition, which should include the outgoing senior manager contributing to the handover everything that it would be reasonable to expect them to know and consider relevant, including their opinions. This could be achieved by requiring outgoing senior managers to prepare a handover certificate, but the FCA recognises that this will not always be practical.

To ensure that these requirements are satisfied, it is good practice to include in senior managers’ employment contracts (and settlement agreements) specific obligations relating to handovers.

Reallocating senior managers’ responsibilities

In addition to ensuring that adequate handovers take place between outgoing and incoming senior managers, firms should also ensure on the departure of a senior manager that their responsibilities are reallocated and that this is recorded in a way that is compliant with relevant regulatory requirements. This may include temporary reallocation to one or more existing senior managers where the replacement does not take over immediately on the departure of the departing senior manager, as well as updating the firm’s management responsibilities map and statements of responsibilities.

Reporting requirements

When an individual ceases to perform an SMF, the firm must generally notify the relevant regulatory within seven business days.

SM&CR firms must notify the relevant regulators if certain types of disciplinary action are taken, which can include dismissal – see question 10.

Form U5, the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration, is used by broker-dealers to terminate the registration of an associated person with FINRA and in other applicable jurisdictions and self-regulatory organisations. A FINRA member firm must file Form U5 within 30 days of an employee’s termination. This form includes the reason for an employee’s departure and must include a detailed description of the reasons for termination. Employee appeals related to the content of the U5 are arbitrated before FINRA (eg, if an employee challenges their termination).

Payments to retiring employees

FINRA prohibits paying commissions to unregistered persons, except for retired representatives receiving trailing commissions where a bona fide contract was entered into between the broker-dealer and the retiring employee.

California

California law prohibits the use of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful. Provisions protecting the identity of a claimant are permitted where requested by the claimant. California law also prohibits “no-rehire” provisions in settlements of employment disputes, with limited exceptions for employees whom the employer, in good faith, determined engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault, or any criminal conduct.

Employees must not, both during and after the termination of the contract, obtain, use or unlawfully disclose a business secret he or she became aware of in the course of his or her professional activity, or disclose the secrecy of any matter of a personal or confidential nature of which he or she became aware in the course of his or her professional activity (article 17, 3°, a, Employment Contracts Act).

The company can include a NDA in the employment contract to underline what is considered confidential information. A penalty clause (with a lump sum to be paid) can be foreseen in case of a breach after the end of the employment contract, but not during the period of the employment relationship. This is because of the prohibition on restricting the rights of employees or increasing their obligations in comparison with what is foreseen by the Employment Contracts Act (article 6).

Yes, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are potentially lawful in Brazil. The applicable rules are the same as for any legal transaction: expression of will, legality of the object, and compliance with the law.

As a rule, NDAs are a consequence of professional activity and do not require specific consideration.

Protected information is specific to the contractor (employer) and shared with the employee during the execution of the contract (strategies, customers, commercial secrets, etc).       

General information belonging to the employee due to his or her academic training and previous professional experience is not included in NDAs.

All actors in the financial services sector are bound by strict professional and banking secrecy.

But beyond the professional secrecy that is inherent to the employment contract, there may be an interest in particular circumstances to strengthen this requirement and make it an obligation of absolute professional secrecy. This is legal under French law and generally takes the form of a confidentiality clause (non-disclosure) inserted in the employee's employment contract.

In principle, a confidentiality clause, which includes an obligation of professional secrecy to which the employee is bound as well as an obligation of discretion, is not subject to any particular conditions. In particular, it does not require the payment of any financial consideration.

On the other hand, when an employee by an agreement or transaction goes further and waives his freedom of expression, the case law sets stricter conditions of validity. The agreement must be adapted, necessary and proportionate to the aim sought.

Confidentiality clauses must also comply with any obligations in terms of transparency, the fight against corruption and influence peddling provided for by Law No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016.

The only entities against which banking secrecy cannot be invoked are the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority, the Banque de France and the judicial authority acting in the context of criminal proceedings (article L. 511-33 of the Monetary and Financial Code). On the other hand, bank secrecy is enforceable in civil court proceedings, as confirmed by abundant case law.

Under German law, it is permissible to enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. In practice, NDAs are usually agreed upon in written or text form, although this is not legally required. If drafted for use in multiple cases, NDAs are subject to a particularly strict test to be effective: they must be transparent and may not unduly burden the employee under General Terms and Conditions legislation. NDAs should, therefore, only relate to very limited and specific information.

In practice, NDAs are difficult to enforce as it is the employer who must prove a culpable breach of contract, as well as damages resulting from such a breach. Employers should, therefore, also use other means to ensure data protection and confidentiality, such as properly defining and protecting business secrets under the Business Secrets Act; and implementing technical and organisational measures to limit access to certain information, which may include sharing information only on a need-to-know basis.

Non-disclosure agreements are legally enforceable in Hong Kong. They follow the contract law rules and there is no other particular form or rules. To be enforceable, a non-disclosure agreement must protect information that is both confidential and valuable. There are common exceptions where confidentiality will not apply to certain information, including information available in the public domain, information lawfully received from a third party without proprietary or confidentiality limitations, information known to the employee before first receipt of same from the employer, and information disclosed in circumstances required by law or regulatory requirement.

NDAs are governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and are generally lawful in India.

Generally, post-contract restrictive covenants like non-compete clauses that restrain a person’s exercise of lawful trade, profession or business are declared void because of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.

The enforceability of NDAs may be affected if they restrain an employee from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business. Accordingly, an NDA crafted to protect the “confidential information” of the former employer but not to impose the above-mentioned restraints on the employee is saved from any clash with Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act and is, therefore, enforceable in the courts of law in India. If NDAs prohibit an employee from disclosing commercial or trade secrets, then they cannot be held to be in restraint of trade. This was observed by the Bombay High Court in VFS Global Services Pvt Ltd v Mr Suprit Roy[1].

Yes. It is possible to use NDAs in Ireland and it is quite common for them to be used, but there are some limitations on their use and enforceability.

Certain mandatory reporting obligations will override a contractual non-disclosure agreement, such as the requirement for PCFs under section 38(2) of the CBI (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 to disclose certain matters to the CBI.

Further, an NDA cannot extinguish an employee's right to anti-retaliation protection where the employee makes a protected disclosure either internally or externally under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 - 2022.

Yes, non-disclosure agreements are potentially lawful in the Isle of Man. A contract of employment may also contain confidentiality provisions for financial services employees. However, a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality clause would not (and could not) prevent a financial services employee (or any employee) from making a protected disclosure, (ie, a disclosure made by an employee where they reasonably believe there is serious wrongdoing within the workplace (whistleblowing)).

A financial services employee may, furthermore, be subject to a legal requirement to disclose information in certain circumstances that might override an NDA. For example, an individual can be compelled to provide information by the IoM FSA during an interview, and such compulsion will generally override an employee’s duties of confidentiality. Alternatively, an individual can be subject to a requirement to disclose information in the context of legal proceedings (eg, by court order).

Non-disclosure provisions under Mexican law are applicable and enforceable. All information to which employees have access, given their position and services, regarding third parties and deemed sensitive or confidential (ie, non-public information) may not be disclosed at any time after the termination of employment or used for any other purposes.

The breach of non-disclosure obligations of confidential information and trade secrets may lead to economic sanctions or imprisonment. The disclosure of confidential information or using it to an employer’s detriment is an offence under criminal law. Also, employees that breach confidential obligations may have to pay damages to the affected party.

Pursuant to article 186 of the general provisions applicable to brokerage houses, internal policies must be in place to establish guidelines and procedures for the use, management, conservation and, as applicable, destruction of books, records, documents, and other information; and must guarantee the adequate use and control of documents containing the confidential information of clients. Also, these entities must establish strict controls to avoid the improper use of books, records, and documents in general.

According to the Law to Regulate Technological Finance Institutions, entities must include measures and policies to control operational risks within their filing for authorisation at the CNBV. They must also provide information security and confidentiality policies, with evidence of secure, trustable and precise technological support for their clients and with minimum standards of security to ensure the confidentiality, availability and integrity of information, as well as to prevent fraud and cyberattacks.

Additionally, financial entities must guarantee the security and integrity of the information, and implement security measures to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the information generated, stored, or processed.

Lastly, under the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identity of Transactions with Illegally Obtained Resources, filing notices, information and documentation related to vulnerable activities to the SHCP does not qualify as a breach of confidentiality obligations.

Since there is no specific legislation on NDAs under Dutch law, the general principle is that NDAs are permitted.

NDAs may never prevent a financial sector employee from reporting or revealing suspected misconduct.

NDAs are generally lawful in Singapore, although the extent of their enforceability depends on their contents. For example, restrictive covenants can be subject to further scrutiny (see question 13). While not subject to any particular form or rules, employers should take particular care to specify the type of information protected under the NDA, so that employees have a clear understanding of the protected information – and to enhance the enforceability of the NDA.

Under Singapore common law, in addition to breach of contract, a party may also bring an action for breach of confidence. A plaintiff will have to show on the facts that the information is confidential and was imparted in circumstances giving rise to an obligation of confidence (including if confidential information has been accessed or acquired without a plaintiff’s knowledge or consent), which will then invoke the presumption of a breach of confidence. The burden will then fall on the defendant to rebut this presumption.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are generally lawful in Switzerland. However, NDAs are not regulated by statutory law and therefore do not have to follow any particular statutory form or rule. Nevertheless, most NDAs often contain a similar basic structure.

The core clauses of an NDA concern:

• manufacturing and business secrets or the scope of further confidentiality;
• the purpose of use;
• the return and destruction of devices containing confidential information; and
• post-contractual confidentiality obligations.

As a general rule, it is recommended to use the written form.

To ensure possible enforcement of an NDA in the employment context, the requirements of a post-contractual non-compete obligation (see below) must be met.

Non-disclosure agreements may be used in the UAE (including DIFC and ADGM free zones).  There are no particular requirements regarding the form or rules for those NDAs.

NDAs (also known as confidentiality agreements) are potentially lawful and enforceable in the UK. It is common to include NDAs in employment contracts (to protect the confidential information of the employer during and after employment) and in settlement agreements (to reiterate existing confidentiality obligations and to keep the circumstances of the settlement confidential).

NDAs do not need to follow a particular form, but they must be reasonable in scope. Following #MeToo, there has been considerable government, parliamentary, and regulatory scrutiny of the use of NDAs and their reasonableness in different circumstances.

The following limitations on NDAs should be noted:

• By law, any NDA purporting to prevent an individual from making a “protected disclosure” as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ie, blowing the whistle about a matter) is void.

• The regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), has issued a detailed warning notice and guidance to practitioners setting out – in its view – inappropriate or improper uses of NDAs. Failure to comply with the SRA’s warning notice may lead to disciplinary action. The SRA lists the following as examples of improper use of NDAs:

• • using an NDA as a means of preventing, or seeking to impede or deter, a person from:
    • cooperating with a criminal investigation or prosecution;
    • reporting an offence to a law enforcement agency;
    • reporting misconduct, or a serious breach of the SRA’s regulatory requirements, to the SRA, or making an equivalent report to any other body responsible for supervising or regulating the matters in question; and
    • making a protected disclosure;
    • using an NDA to influence the substance of such a report, disclosure or cooperation;
    • using an NDA to prevent any disclosure required by law;
    • using an NDA to prevent proper disclosure about the agreement or circumstances surrounding the agreement to professional advisers, such as legal or tax advisors, or medical professionals and counsellors, who are bound by a duty of confidentiality;
    • including or proposing clauses known to be unenforceable; and
    • using warranties, indemnities and clawback clauses in a way that is designed to, or has the effect of, improperly preventing or inhibiting permitted reporting or disclosures being made (for example, asking a person to warrant that they are not aware of any reason why they would make a permitted disclosure, in circumstances where a breach of warranty would activate a clawback clause).
       
• The Law Society of England and Wales, a professional association representing solicitors in England and Wales, has issued similar guidance (including a practice note) on the use of NDAs in the context of the termination of employment relationships.
• Other non-regulatory guidance on the use of NDAs has also been issued, including by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Care should be taken accordingly to ensure that the wording of any NDA complies with prevailing guidance, especially from the SRA.

Non-disclosure agreements are currently permissible under United States law with some exceptions, typically pertaining to whistleblower, harassment, and discrimination matters. On 7 December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which prohibits the enforcement of non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions that were agreed to before an incident of workplace sexual assault or sexual harassment occurred. In other words, it does not prohibit these provisions in settlement or severance agreements.

Both Dodd-Frank and SOX prohibit employers from impeding an individual’s whistleblowing process. Confidentiality provisions should expressly authorise employee communications directly with, or responding to any inquiry from, or providing testimony before the SEC, FINRA, any other self-regulatory organisation or any other state or federal regulatory authority.

The United States Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 discourages NDAs in the settlement of sexual harassment claims. Under this law, employers settling claims alleging sexual harassment or abuse that include a confidentiality or non-disclosure provision in the settlement agreement cannot take a tax deduction for that settlement payment or related attorneys' fees.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees (except for supervisors) cannot be prohibited from discussing their compensation or working conditions

California

• California Law prohibits NDAs that would prevent employees from discussing or disclosing their compensation or discussing the wages of others. However, California permits the use of a non-disclosure provision that may preclude the disclosure of any amount paid in any separation or settlement agreement.
• California imposes restrictions on the use of non-disclosure provisions that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful in employment agreements, settlement agreements, and separation agreements.
• California employers cannot:
  • require employees, in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a condition of employment or for continued employment, to sign any non-disparagement or non-disclosure provision that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace;
  • include in any separation agreement a provision that prohibits the disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace; or
  • include a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to claims for sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent workplace harassment or discrimination that are filed in a civil or administrative action, unless the settlement agreement is negotiated, which means that the agreement is voluntary, deliberate, informed, provides consideration of value to the employee, and the employee is giving notice and an opportunity to retain an attorney or is represented by an attorney.

New York

• New York law prohibits NDAs that:
  • prevent an employee from discussing or disclosing their wages or the wages of another employee.
  • prevent an employee from disclosing factual information related to a future discrimination claim, unless the agreement notifies employees that it does not prevent them from speaking to the EEOC, the New York Department of Human Rights, and any local human rights commission or attorney retained by the individual.

New York law also prohibits employers from mandating confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions when settling sexual harassment claims (though allows such provisions where it is the employee’s preference to include them).