The Supreme Court is currently considering whether such provisions violate federal law when they prevent employees from collectively pursuing claims, but the Court’s recent rulings in favor of arbitration suggest that they will likely survive legal challenge even under those circumstances.Still, some arbitration provisions only apply to claims against employers, not claims against individual executives.At the end of the 19th century, courts expanded the scope of what NDAs could cover from only the most highly confidential pieces of information to a “general prohibition on using a wide range of firm-specific information” and to publicly disclosing information about employer misconduct, short of actions that were illegal.

invalidating decsa-85

Workers whose employers outsource their HR departments—something that’s increasingly common—are no doubt less likely to share sensitive allegations that could end their careers.

Confounding the problems of underenforcement is a network of legal rules that act at cross-purposes with laws encouraging transparency.

Ron: Let's say a player starts a game like "Timber", where the advanced rules are 5-lives only, and has a great game from the start, bordering on a personal best or even world record, with lives remaining. Almost happened to me last evening in practice..assume this was the correct month for "Timber", as I am aware of the 48 hour thing.

If a player hits "F12" for the screen shot after the 5th life loss, and still continues their game for record tracking purposes, would the portion of the game up to the point of the 5th life loss still count for the Advanced DECA, or would the score be invalidated for the DECA yet viable for the Cubeman MAME rankings ?

The same is true for non-disparagement provisions in employment contracts: It’s an unfair labor practice to have employees agree not to “publicly criticize, ridicule, disparage or defame” a company or its “directors, officers, shareholders, or employees.” So while these provisions still persist in boilerplate form in most employment contracts, they can violate federal labor law if put to use.

Moreover, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law that protects employees from sexual harassment and sex discrimination at work, invalidates settlement agreements that prohibit settling employees from filing charges with or assisting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its investigation of any sexual-harassment charges.For a range of reasons—including the dramatic decline in union membership in the private sector—this realm of labor and employment law is generally underenforced, meaning the task of enforcement often de facto falls to companies’ human-resources departments.But internal compliance structures are notoriously weak: As is alleged to have happened at the Weinstein Company, those who enforce anti-harassment protections can even be complicit with the harassers.These include rules governing how to interpret confidentiality requirements—specifically, those in non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), out-of-court settlements, and arbitration provisions—that can limit what employees are allowed to say about sexual harassment.(While Weinstein reportedly deployed NDAs and settlements to silence alleged victims or prevent supervising employees from speaking about reported misconduct, other employers—like Fox News, in response to claims made by Gretchen Carlson, and Sterling Jewelers, to name a couple recent high-profile stories—have reportedly invoked arbitration provisions requiring confidential adjudication of harassment claims.)The first of these approaches is NDAs, which employers regularly include in employment agreements.Further, when, as in the Weinstein case, the story is so explosive, suing alleged victims for a breach of confidentiality may be too costly in public-relations terms.