Oklahoma Senate Bill SB783

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Labor; prohibiting an employer from requiring a nondisclosure agreement from an employee relating to sexual harassment in the workplace. Effective date.

Summary

SB 783 would add a new section to Oklahoma labor law prohibiting employers from requiring an employee or prospective employee to sign or renew a nondisclosure agreement covering sexual harassment in the workplace as a condition of employment. The bill defines sexual harassment broadly to include sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The measure also creates a private right of action for an employee to sue an employer that violates the prohibition. Any lawsuit would have to be filed in the county where the alleged violation occurred and within six months of the violation. The bill is set to take effect November 1, 2025, if enacted.

Impact

If enacted, SB 783 would create a new codified labor protection in Title 40 of the Oklahoma Statutes, limiting employer use of nondisclosure agreements in the hiring and employment context when the subject is sexual harassment. It would affect employers and prospective or current employees by making such agreements unenforceable as a condition of employment and by exposing employers to civil litigation for violations.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be framed as a worker-protection measure aimed at preventing employers from using confidentiality agreements to silence sexual harassment claims. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal support or opposition is documented here. The bill’s introduction and referral indicate it was moving through the legislative process but had not yet generated a recorded public debate in the supplied record.

Contention

The main policy issue is whether employers should be barred from requiring nondisclosure agreements related to workplace sexual harassment. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving transparency and employee protection, while opponents may argue it restricts employer contracting practices or could affect settlement and confidentiality arrangements. The bill also raises procedural questions by allowing a civil action with a relatively short six-month filing window and venue limited to the county of the alleged violation.