Prohibit non-disclosure agreements in settlement cases involving the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Protective Trust Workers Compensation Pool.
Summary
SB 168 prohibits non-disclosure agreements, or confidentiality provisions, in settlement agreements entered into by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Protective Trust Workers Compensation Pool. The bill requires those settlements to be subject to the same disclosure rules that already apply to certain settlement agreements under South Dakota law, and it requires the agreement to state that the terms and amount are discoverable unless another exemption in chapter 1-27 applies.
The bill also provides that any settlement provision violating this requirement, for agreements entered into after July 1, 2025, is void and unenforceable. In practical terms, the measure limits the ability of this specific workers’ compensation pool to keep settlement amounts and terms confidential, while preserving any existing statutory exemptions from disclosure that may still apply.
Impact
SB 168 would amend South Dakota’s public records and settlement-disclosure framework by adding a new section to chapter 1-27 that specifically governs settlements involving the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Protective Trust Workers Compensation Pool. It would make confidentiality clauses in those settlements unenforceable if they conflict with the bill’s disclosure requirement, thereby increasing transparency for a defined public-sector workers’ compensation entity and potentially affecting how claims are resolved and documented.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a transparency measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The caption and operative language suggest support for public disclosure of settlement terms, especially in a school-related public trust context, and there is no evidence in the provided record of formal opposition or amendment activity.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between transparency and confidentiality in settlement negotiations. Supporters would favor public access to settlement terms and amounts, while opponents may argue that banning NDAs could reduce flexibility in resolving claims, increase litigation exposure, or affect the bargaining position of the workers’ compensation pool. Any dispute would center on whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the benefits of private settlement confidentiality for this specific entity.