Prohibits provisions in any waiver, settlement, agreement or other resolution of any claim where the foundation for which is an alleged violation of the labor law or article fifteen of the executive law, that prevent the disclosure of the employee's workplace experience with the employer.
This bill amends New York’s General Obligations Law section 5-336 to expand limits on nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions in employment-related settlements and agreements. It would bar employers from including or enforcing terms in waivers, settlements, or other resolutions of claims involving alleged violations of the Labor Law or Article 15 of the Executive Law that prevent an employee from disclosing their workplace experience with the employer. The bill also defines “employer” broadly to include public and private employers, and “employee” broadly to include applicants, former employees, interns, volunteers, and certain independent contractors.
The bill preserves some confidentiality protections. It allows agreements to keep settlement dollar amounts confidential and to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, and other confidential information that does not involve the covered workplace claims. It also requires that settlement agreements state in bold language that the employee is entitled to receive a copy of the agreement in their primary language. For future employment-related contracts or applications entered into on or after January 1, 2026, any clause that blocks disclosure of factual information about future alleged labor-law or human-rights violations, or about the employee’s workplace experience, would be void and unenforceable, while still allowing confidentiality provisions that do not cover those claims.
The bill’s impact would be to further limit the use of secrecy provisions in workplace dispute resolution and employment paperwork under New York law. It would affect employers, employees, applicants, former employees, interns, volunteers, and certain independent contractors, and would make covered nondisclosure terms unenforceable as against public policy. It would also reinforce employees’ ability to speak with government agencies, regulators, law enforcement, and attorneys, and to disclose information needed to obtain unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or other public benefits.
The overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger worker protections and transparency in workplace disputes, as reflected by the bill’s introduction by multiple Senate sponsors and its focus on employee disclosure rights. No committee transcript or vote data was provided, so there is no recorded floor debate or voting history to indicate broader legislative opposition or support beyond the sponsors.
The main point of contention suggested by the text is the balance between protecting employees’ ability to speak about workplace experiences and preserving employers’ interests in confidentiality, trade secrets, and settlement finality. The bill narrows confidentiality restrictions significantly, but it still permits secrecy over settlement amounts and non-covered confidential business information, indicating an effort to draw a line between worker speech rights and legitimate employer confidentiality concerns.
The bill would amend General Obligations Law section 5-336 to make certain nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses in employment-related settlements and future employment agreements void and unenforceable when they restrict disclosure of an employee’s workplace experience or facts related to alleged Labor Law or Executive Law Article 15 violations. It would also expand the statute’s coverage to a broad class of workers and require primary-language notice in settlement agreements. Employers would retain the ability to protect settlement amounts, trade secrets, and other non-covered confidential information, but they would lose the ability to use confidentiality terms to suppress disclosure of covered workplace claims and experiences.
The bill appears to have a generally pro-worker, transparency-oriented sentiment. Its sponsors are a group of Senate Democrats, and the measure is framed as a worker-protection and anti-secrecy reform. Because no committee transcript or vote record is available, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate, but the text suggests the bill is intended to strengthen employees’ rights to speak about workplace conditions and alleged violations.
The central contention is whether employers should be allowed to use confidentiality provisions to limit disclosure of workplace experiences in resolving employment disputes. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing coercive secrecy and protecting workers’ ability to report misconduct, while opponents may argue it reduces settlement flexibility and undermines confidentiality interests. The bill attempts to address employer concerns by preserving confidentiality for settlement amounts and for trade secrets or proprietary information, but it still sharply limits nondisclosure terms tied to labor-law and human-rights claims.