loader
Page is loading...
Print Logo Logo
generic_insight_detail

Second Circuit Affirms NLRB Position on Broad Confidentiality Agreements

Gerald Lutkus

Gerald F. Lutkus

Of Counsel (Retired)

You can’t force employees to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibit them from disclosing “non-public information intended for internal purposes” or that bar them from speaking with any “media source” without the employer‘s permission. The NLRB decided that issue on June 14, 2016, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the NLRB’s decision on Aug. 31. The employer, Long Island Association for AIDS Care Inc. (LIAAC), is a not-for-profit, non-union organization that provides services for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. LIAAC had confidentiality agreements that included those provisions noted above. The employee, Marcus Acosta, had signed such an agreement upon employment, but when he was asked to sign a new copy later in his employment, he balked. According to the court’s opinion, Acosta was then told to “sign it or get fired.” In response, Acosta signed the agreement, but also wrote that he did so “under duress” three times at the bottom of the sheet. Upon seeing that, the director of human resources, according to the decision, informed Acosta that “you just terminated yourself.” Acosta filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging that LIAAC had “unlawfully prohibited employees from talking about their wages, hours, terms[,] and conditions of employment” and that LIAAC had “discharged [Acosta] because he asserted his Section 7 rights and because he engaged in protected concerted activities.” The NLRB found the employer's actions were unlawful and ordered LIAAC to eliminate the policy provisions and reinstate Acosta with back pay. On review, the Second Circuit said that the employee should not have been terminated: “We hold that the NLRB was correct in deciding that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), when an employer terminates an employee for refusing to agree to an unlawful confidentiality agreement. An employer may not require even one individual employee to agree to abide by unlawful restrictions as a condition of employment. That the employees have not yet organized in order to protest the unlawful nature of the restriction at issue does not make it any less unlawful. . . . We see no reason to judge the effect of an unlawful requirement on an employee's termination based solely on whether the employee acted in concert or alone.”


RELATED ARTICLES

NLRB Proposes Rescinding Trump Board Rule and Expanding Definition of ‘Joint Employer’

September 8, 2022 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

With Tesla Decision, NLRB Rules Dress Codes Unlawful That Restrict Pro-Union Apparel

September 6, 2022 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

How Much of Current Unionization Boom Is Attributable to Nationwide Starbucks Campaign?

September 1, 2022 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Union Organizing

Will Nonunion Employees Have Weingarten Rights in the Workplace Soon?

August 8, 2022 | Labor Relations, Unions and Union Membership

Crosshairs: Labor Board Targets Gig Economy, Noncompete Agreements, and More

July 26, 2022 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
AIDS
Confidentiality Agreements
HIV
Long Island Association for AIDS Care
NLRB
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.