The new Government Code § 12964.5, which does not explicitly apply to negotiated settlement agreements, provides that certain confidentiality provisions are still permitted in settlement agreements? Yes. Shortly thereafter, several borough employees, including the complainant`s superior, were quoted in press reports stating that the complainant had resigned due to a conflict of interest resulting from an inappropriate relationship with the union president. The complainant filed a complaint in respect of several complaints, including a breach of the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement. The Landkreis asserted that it was required to disclose the fault and that the confidentiality provision was contrary to public policy in favour of open government. For example, New York passed the nation`s first national law on the subject, which “for any claim or remedy . . . the de facto basis for which sexual harassment is. . . . No employer…. have the power to include or approve in [a settlement agreement] any provision or condition that would prevent disclosure of the facts and circumstances underlying the claim or remedy, unless the condition of confidentiality is the applicant`s preference. N.Y.
Gen. Obligations Law 5-336 (highlighted only here). Earlier this month, New York passed additional laws that extended this provision to all rights to “discrimination, not just sexual harassment.” 2019 NY S.B 6577 / 2019 NY A.B. 8421. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Congress amended federal tax law with respect to the deductibility of comparison and attorneys` fees costs for certain types of claims. 26 U.S.C§ 162 (q). Specifically, the tax law now provides that “this chapter does not allow deduction for comparisons or payments related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse when such a statement or payment is subject to a confidentiality agreement … ». 26 U.S.C. § 162 (q) (1) (highlighted here only). The law also prohibits the deduction of “attorneys` fees related to such a transaction or payment.” 26 U.S.C§ 162(q)(2).
In this section, the IRS has not yet provided guidance on the scope of the “related” language. . . .