Workplace Protection Amendments
SB 86, titled the Workplace Protection Amendments, updates Utah’s employment discrimination and workplace confidentiality laws. The bill makes two main changes: it revises the statutory definition of “sexual harassment” in the Utah Antidiscrimination Act to align more directly with Title VII and existing state law, and it strengthens rules governing nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses in employment and settlement agreements involving sexual misconduct. It also clarifies related definitions such as sexual assault, sexual harassment dispute, and retaliation.
Under the bill, confidentiality clauses that prevent employees from discussing sexual assault or sexual harassment remain void and unenforceable when imposed as a condition of employment. The bill also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who alleges sexual harassment or assault or who refuses to sign such a clause, and it gives employees a three-business-day right to withdraw from a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause related to sexual misconduct. At the same time, the bill preserves employers’ ability to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, settlement amounts, and legally privileged information, and it does not authorize false statements or disclosures that would violate law.
The bill affects Utah Code sections 34A-5-102 and 34A-5-114, which are part of the state’s antidiscrimination and labor framework. Its practical impact is to expand and clarify workplace protections for employees who report sexual misconduct, while limiting the enforceability of certain confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in employment-related agreements. It also applies to employers of any size for the anti-retaliation provisions tied to allegations of sexual harassment or assault.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable. The bill advanced unanimously through Senate committee and passed the Senate on second and third readings without opposition. It also received a favorable recommendation in House committee and passed the House on third reading with a substantial majority, though with some dissent. That pattern suggests broad legislative support for the bill’s core workplace-protection goals.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between employee protections and employer confidentiality interests. Supporters likely viewed the bill as closing loopholes and ensuring workers can report sexual misconduct without being silenced or punished, while opponents may have been concerned about limits on settlement confidentiality, reputational protections, or the broader reach of the revised harassment definition. The bill attempts to address those concerns by preserving trade secret protections and allowing limited confidentiality around settlement amounts and identifying details at the employee’s request.
The bill amends Utah’s Antidiscrimination and Labor Code by changing the definition of sexual harassment in Section 34A-5-114 and refining definitions and employer-employee relationship rules in Section 34A-5-102. It makes confidentiality clauses covering sexual misconduct unenforceable as a condition of employment, prohibits retaliation tied to allegations of sexual harassment or assault or refusal to sign such clauses, and creates a short rescission period for settlement agreements containing sexual-misconduct confidentiality terms. These changes affect employers, employees, settlement agreements, and workplace policies across the state, while preserving protections for trade secrets, proprietary information, and lawful confidentiality provisions.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with unanimous or near-unanimous support in Senate committee and on Senate floor votes, and a favorable House committee recommendation. The House floor vote showed some opposition, but the bill still passed by a wide margin. The voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement on strengthening protections for employees who report sexual harassment or assault, even if some members had reservations about the scope of the confidentiality restrictions.
The principal tension in SB 86 is between protecting employees who report sexual misconduct and preserving employers’ ability to use confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in settlements and employment agreements. Supporters of the bill are likely focused on preventing retaliation and ensuring victims can speak freely about harassment or assault. Potential critics may be concerned that the bill limits settlement leverage, increases litigation exposure, or broadens the definition of sexual harassment in ways that could affect employer compliance obligations. The bill responds to those concerns by explicitly preserving trade secret, proprietary information, and other lawful confidentiality protections.