Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Can a non-disclosure agreement be enforced in cases of alleged sexual misconduct?
Executive Summary
Can a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) be enforced in cases of alleged sexual misconduct? The short answer is: sometimes, but increasingly limited — legal regimes and recent reforms have narrowed NDA enforceability where they would conceal criminal conduct or prevent reporting to authorities, while other jurisdictions still allow NDAs in civil settlements that can effectively silence victims [1] [2] [3]. Recent research and litigation show NDAs and mandatory arbitration often keep wrongdoing private, prompting legislative responses in multiple places that vary by date and scope [4] [2] [3].
1. Government refusals and partial reforms: the UK chooses limits over a ban
The UK Government decided not to impose a blanket ban on NDAs in sexual harassment cases, rejecting the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee’s call for an outright prohibition, while introducing targeted measures to void NDAs that prevent disclosure of criminal conduct and to protect reporting to authorities and advice services. This approach, announced in November 2025 and developed in later bills, signals a policy preference for surgical reform rather than prohibition, leaving civil confidentiality largely intact but narrowing the space where NDAs can block criminal reporting [1] [3].
2. Legal carve-outs and emerging statutes: where NDAs lose their teeth
Recent UK legislation and amendments — including provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Bill 2024 and proposed Employment Rights Bill changes — explicitly void confidentiality clauses that prevent complainants from speaking to law enforcement or obtaining victim services, creating statutory exceptions to enforceability [3]. These legal carve-outs, publicized through 2024–2026 legislative action, mean an NDA will likely be unenforceable if it seeks to bar criminal reporting, though it may still limit public disclosure in purely civil contexts [3] [1].
3. US state-level action: California’s explicit prohibitions and procedural changes
California represents a contrasting trajectory: by October 2025 the state extended statutes of limitations for sexual harassment claims and prohibited nondisclosure provisions in settlement agreements for many harassment claims, while setting procedural requirements and limited exceptions for employers [2] [5]. Those statutory changes make NDAs less effective tools to silence victims in California, but the reforms are state-specific and contingent on procedural deadlines; NDAs remain a factor in many other U.S. jurisdictions without similar bans [2] [5].
4. Academic and empirical critique: NDAs and arbitration as secrecy engines
Research collected and discussed in late 2025 highlights that mandatory arbitration clauses and NDAs frequently prevent information about workplace wrongdoing from entering the public sphere, damaging deterrence and pattern detection for sexual harassment. Scholars argue these private dispute mechanisms can suppress evidence of serial misconduct, making systemic accountability harder and prompting calls for regulatory limits on confidentiality and arbitration in sensitive claims [4]. This research underpins policy reforms and public debate over NDAs’ broader social impact.
5. International judicial developments: courts can recharacterize misconduct to bypass NDAs
Outside common-law reform debates, courts in other jurisdictions have taken actions that reduce NDA power by recharacterizing misconduct; for example, a Chinese court recognized workplace sexual assault as a work-related injury in September 2025, enabling compensation and undermining employer attempts to treat the incident as private. That judicial framing shows courts can create remedies that bypass confidentiality agreements by placing claims within statutory compensation regimes rather than confidential civil settlements [6].
6. Litigation that exposes limits of political insulation and NDAs’ public cost
High-profile lawsuits underscore how NDAs intersect with political influence and public accountability. Litigation alleging sexual harassment involving political advisers and city officials, reported in early 2026, raised questions about what officials knew and whether confidentiality arrangements insulated powerful actors. Such cases illustrate that NDAs can delay disclosure and complicate institutional responses, and that public pressure and litigation can force re-examination of confidentiality’s scope even where the law allows NDAs [7].
7. Big picture: enforcement depends on jurisdiction, statute, and whether criminality is involved
Enforceability of NDAs in alleged sexual misconduct cases hinges on three factors: local statutory bans or carve-outs (as in California and evolving UK law), whether the agreement attempts to bar criminal reporting (increasingly unenforceable), and the procedural posture — criminal, civil, or administrative — that may place the matter outside private settlement frameworks. The trend through 2024–2026 is toward narrowing NDA power where secrecy would impede criminal investigations or public safety, but substantial variation remains across jurisdictions and case contexts [2] [3] [1].
Conclusion: NDAs are not categorically unenforceable in sexual misconduct cases, but reforms and judicial developments between 2024 and 2026 have significantly limited their ability to block criminal reporting and public accountability; outcomes depend on the jurisdiction, statutory language, and whether mechanisms like arbitration are involved [1] [2] [3] [4] [6] [7].