Prohibit Certain Employment Agreements
SB324 amends New Mexico’s existing workplace sexual misconduct settlement law to further restrict the use of nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements in cases involving sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and sexual retaliation. The bill bars private employers from requiring prospective, current, or former employees and independent contractors to sign such provisions as a condition of employment or settlement, while still allowing limited confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements for the settlement amount and, at the worker’s request, for factual details or identifying information related to the claim.
The bill also clarifies that confidentiality provisions cannot be used to block disclosures required in judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, and it makes void and unenforceable any prohibited confidentiality clause. In addition, it allows plaintiffs in civil actions to introduce evidence that an employer used similar nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements involving the same alleged wrongdoer, which may support punitive damages. It further states that predispute nondisclosure, non-disparagement, arbitration, and joint-action waiver provisions are not enforceable in covered sexual misconduct disputes when the claimant elects to proceed under federal, tribal, or state law. The bill applies only to agreements entered into on or after June 20, 2025.
SB324 would amend Section 50-4-36 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated, expanding and clarifying limits on employer-imposed confidentiality and non-disparagement terms in workplace sexual misconduct matters. It affects private employers, employees, former employees, prospective employees, and independent contractors, and it changes the enforceability of settlement terms, predispute arbitration agreements, and joint-action waivers in covered claims. The bill is intended to strengthen access to legal remedies and reduce the ability of employers to silence allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to measure sentiment directly. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-protection and transparency bill, with a remedial purpose aimed at limiting secrecy around sexual misconduct claims. The statutory language itself emphasizes liberal construction to advance that purpose, suggesting a generally supportive policy posture toward survivors and complainants.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s restrictions on employer confidentiality tools and its limits on predispute arbitration and joint-action waivers. Employers may view the measure as reducing settlement flexibility, privacy protections, and dispute-resolution options, while employee advocates are likely to support the bill as preventing coercive silence agreements and preserving the ability to report misconduct. Another possible point of debate is the balance the bill strikes by allowing limited confidentiality at the claimant’s request and for settlement amounts, which may be seen as either a necessary compromise or an insufficient safeguard depending on the stakeholder.