NDA Laws by State: Where Employers Cannot Gag Harassment, Discrimination and Wage Talk (2026)

The 29 states with no law of their own are not a free pass. The Speak Out Act still voids pre-dispute NDAs on sexual assault and sexual harassment everywhere, so the real gap in those states is discrimination, retaliation, pay and settlements signed after a dispute.

Sexual harassment charges dipped to 5,581 in FY 2021 and climbed back to 8,475 in FY 2025, the highest point in this ten-year window. Each charge is a case that can end in a settlement, often with confidentiality terms to read.

Money recovered for harassment charges rose from $125.5 million in FY 2016 to $261.9 million in FY 2025. These are administrative recoveries only, so lawsuits and private settlements come on top.

NDAs are the most common restrictive clause job seekers report, at 45%, ahead of class action waivers and mandatory arbitration. With each of the top three showing up in roughly two of every five jobs or more, it pays to read the whole packet and not just the NDA.

These are three different remedies, so do not rank them against each other. What matters is that Washington lets the worker sue for the money directly, while Oregon and Maine rely on penalties and fines.

Support for outlawing these NDAs runs above half in every group shown, from 57% of Gen Z voters to 73% of Democrats. New York already has a bill, S5404, pending in committee that would go further than its current law.

When a harassment or discrimination settlement can still be kept confidential

Source: California Legislative Information, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1001 (as amended by SB 331, Stats. 2021, Ch. 638); California Legislative Information, California Government Code § 12964.5 (as amended by SB 331, Stats. 2021, Ch. 638); New York State Senate, New York General Obligations Law § 5-336, Nondisclosure agreements; Oregon State Legislature, ORS 659A.370, Employer prohibited from entering into agreements that prevent employee from discussing certain unlawful conduct; New Mexico Legislature, New Mexico House Bill 21 (2020), as passed: workplace sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims, nondisclosure agreements; Maine Legislature, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Maine Revised Statutes Title 26, § 599-C, Nondisclosure agreements (PL 2021, c. 760); Utah State Legislature, Utah HB 55 (2024), Employment Confidentiality Amendments, enacting Utah Code § 34A-5-114; Washington State Legislature, RCW 49.44.211, Nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions (2022 c 133 s 2). Download as image

State limits on NDAs covering workplace harassment and discrimination by state

• 10Broad: discrimination and harassment
• 9Narrower: sex-based harassment, assault or discrimination
• 29No state law found (federal Speak Out Act only)

Which states limit NDAs on harassment and discrimination in 2026?

Ten states have broad laws that reach discrimination and harassment claims, not just sexual misconduct: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington. Nine more have narrower laws focused on sex-based harassment, assault or discrimination, including Tennessee, Virginia, Utah and Vermont.

The narrower group is uneven. Louisiana also covers hostile work environment claims. Nevada covers sex discrimination by employers and landlords. Arizona's law is about criminal sexual offenses and mainly protects your right to answer police and prosecutors. Maryland targets waivers of future sexual harassment claims rather than NDAs as such.

We could not confirm the status in Connecticut, Massachusetts or DC, so the map leaves them uncounted. If you work there, check with a local employment lawyer before you rely on any answer.

Does the federal Speak Out Act protect me in every state?

Partly. The Speak Out Act became law on Dec 7, 2022. It makes NDAs and non-disparagement clauses signed before a dispute unenforceable when the dispute involves sexual assault or sexual harassment. That rule applies in every state.

Two limits matter. First, it only covers clauses you agreed to before the dispute arose, such as the NDA in your offer letter. A confidentiality term in a settlement you sign after raising a complaint is outside it. Second, it does not cover race, age or disability discrimination, retaliation or unpaid wages. In the 29 states without their own law, those claims can still be wrapped in a valid NDA unless another statute steps in.

Federal labor law separately protects most private-sector, non-supervisory employees who talk with coworkers about pay and working conditions, so a blanket clause banning wage talk is risky for employers everywhere.

Can an employer still ask for a confidential settlement?

Often yes, but on the worker's terms. In several broad states, including New York, Illinois, Oregon and New Mexico, confidentiality is allowed only if the employee asks for it. New York requires it to be the complainant's written preference, with up to 21 days to consider and 7 days to revoke. Illinois uses the same 21 and 7 day windows. Oregon gives at least 7 days to revoke, and an offer cannot be conditioned on the request.

Some states set floors in other ways. California separation agreements must allow at least 5 business days to talk to a lawyer. Utah lets an employee walk away from a settlement with a gag clause within 3 business days. Maine allows a settlement NDA only with separate pay, mutual terms and carve-outs that let you still talk to agencies and courts.

One thing employers can usually keep private is the dollar amount. California, Washington, New Mexico and Utah all allow it. So a clause hiding the payout is normal. A clause hiding what happened is the one to question.

Why are more states limiting workplace NDAs?

Part of it is volume. Workers filed 37,397 harassment charges of all types with the EEOC in FY 2025, and 8,475 of them were Title VII sexual harassment charges. Sexual harassment charges alone brought in $86.12 million through the EEOC administrative process that year, before counting anything won in court. Each of those cases can end in an agreement, and a confidentiality term can keep a repeat problem at the same company out of view.

Part of it is public pressure. In a December 2024 poll, 68% of New York voters supported outlawing NDAs on abuse, harassment or discrimination. Younger workers say it affects their job choices too: 47% of Gen Z non-students said in November 2025 they would be less likely to take a job that bars them from speaking about discrimination.

For employers, that last number matters as much as any statute. A broad gag clause in an offer letter can cost you candidates before it ever costs you a lawsuit.

What does this mean if you are a worker or contractor?

Say you are a marketing manager in Washington leaving after a pay dispute, and the severance agreement says you may never discuss "any matter relating to your employment." Washington's Silenced No More law covers wage and hour violations and reaches contractor agreements too. A clause like that cannot stop you talking about the pay issue, and the employer faces $10,000 in statutory damages or actual damages if greater, plus fees.

Now move the same clause to Texas. There is no state law on point, and the Speak Out Act does not reach pay disputes. The clause has a much better chance of holding there, unless federal labor law protects you as a non-supervisory employee.

• Find the confidentiality, non-disparagement and "cooperation" sections, not just the one labeled NDA.
• Check whether the definition of confidential information mentions workplace conduct, complaints or pay.
• Look for a carve-out that lets you talk to the EEOC, a state agency, police or your own lawyer. If it is missing, ask for one.
• In a settlement, ask whether confidentiality is your choice and how long you have to revoke.
• Keep a copy of everything you sign. Maine employers must keep theirs for 6 years, and you should too.

What should a business do with its NDA templates?

If you hire in more than one state, assume your strictest state sets the floor. A single offer-letter NDA used across offices will often be void in part in California, New York or Washington, and a bad clause can cost you more than the clause itself: damages in Washington, the release in New York.

Rewrite the definition of confidential information so it covers what you actually need to protect: trade secrets, customer data, pricing, source code. Add a plain carve-out stating that nothing in the agreement stops the employee from discussing or reporting harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wage issues or other unlawful conduct. Drop liquidated damages and clawbacks tied to talking about those topics. In New York they void the release you paid for.

For settlements, build in the review and revocation windows from the state table and get the employee's preference in writing. That paperwork is cheap compared with losing the release.

Sources and method

Every number on this page comes from the sources below, each opened and read on or before October 18, 2026. A second, independent review checked every figure against its source and corrected anything that did not match. 48 of 51 state entries were confirmed; any that could not be are marked "Not yet confirmed" and left out of every count and chart.

1. California Legislative Information, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1001 (as amended by SB 331, Stats. 2021, Ch. 638) (Amended effective January 1, 2022 (text read from Internet Archive copy of the official page))
2. California Legislative Information, California Government Code § 12964.5 (as amended by SB 331, Stats. 2021, Ch. 638) (Amended effective January 1, 2022 (text read from Internet Archive copy dated September 2025))
3. New York State Senate, New York General Obligations Law § 5-336, Nondisclosure agreements (Entry published 2023-11-26 (read from Internet Archive copy dated December 2025))
4. New York State Senate, New York Senate Bill S5404 (2025-2026 session) (Status as of October 2026: in Senate Judiciary Committee)
5. Washington State Legislature, RCW 49.44.211, Nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions (2022 c 133 s 2) (2022 c 133, current RCW)
6. Washington State Legislature, RCW 49.44.210 disposition (repealed by 2022 c 133 § 4) (Current RCW dispositions)
7. Oregon State Legislature, ORS 659A.370, Employer prohibited from entering into agreements that prevent employee from discussing certain unlawful conduct (2025 edition of ORS (2019 c.343; 2022 c.107); read from Internet Archive copy dated September 2026)
8. Maine Legislature, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Maine Revised Statutes Title 26, § 599-C, Nondisclosure agreements (PL 2021, c. 760) (Data extracted 10/05/2026)
9. New Mexico Legislature, New Mexico House Bill 21 (2020), as passed: workplace sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims, nondisclosure agreements (2020 Regular Session; applies to agreements on or after May 20, 2020)
10. Utah State Legislature, Utah HB 55 (2024), Employment Confidentiality Amendments, enacting Utah Code § 34A-5-114 (2024 General Session enrolled bill; retrospective to January 1, 2023)
11. Virginia General Assembly, Legislative Information System, Code of Virginia § 40.1-28.01 (2019, c. 131; 2023, c. 511) (Code of Virginia as displayed 10/19/2026)
12. Maryland General Assembly, Maryland Code, Labor and Employment § 3-715 (Current statute text, accessed October 2026)
13. Vermont General Assembly, Vermont Statutes Title 21, § 495h(g)-(h), Sexual harassment (Current statutes (read from Internet Archive copy dated June 2026))
14. Tennessee Secretary of State, Tennessee Public Chapter No. 965 (House Bill 2613), 2018 (Approved May 2018 (passed House April 23, 2018))
15. Hawaii State Legislature, Hawaii Session Laws 2020, Act 17 (H.B. No. 2054), adding a section to HRS chapter 378 (Approved September 15, 2020)
16. Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana Act No. 781 of 2024 (House Bill 161), enacting R.S. 9:2717.3 (2024 Regular Session, enrolled act)
17. Arizona State Legislature, Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-720, Nondisclosure agreements; applicability; use of public monies (Current statute, accessed October 2026)
18. State of Rhode Island General Assembly, Rhode Island General Laws § 28-5-7(1)(vi), Unlawful employment practices (Current statute (history through P.L. 2023, ch. 252); read from Internet Archive copy dated February 2026)
19. Colorado General Assembly, Colorado SB23-172, Protecting Opportunities and Workers' Rights (POWR) Act (Approved June 6, 2023; effective August 7, 2023)
20. New Jersey Legislature, New Jersey P.L.2019, c.39 (S121), N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 (Approved March 18, 2019 (read from Internet Archive copy dated December 2025))
21. Illinois General Assembly, Illinois Public Act 101-0221 (SB 75), Article 1: Workplace Transparency Act, 820 ILCS 96 (Effective January 1, 2020 (enacted text read from Internet Archive copy))
22. Nevada Legislature, Nevada Revised Statutes 10.195, settlement agreements (Added to NRS by 2019 (read from Internet Archive copy dated 2025))
23. Congress.gov (Library of Congress), S.4524 - Speak Out Act, Public Law 117-224 (Became Public Law 12/07/2022)
24. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Table E2c. Title VII Sexual Harassment Charge Receipts and Resolutions by Type of Resolution FY 2010 - FY 2025 (FY 2025 edition, posted March 2026)
25. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Table E2a. Charges Alleging Harassment Charge Receipts and Resolutions by Type (All Statutes) FY 2010 - FY 2025 (FY 2025 edition, posted March 2026)
26. Lift Our Voices, Contracts That Bind: Untangling the Use of NDAs, Forced Arbitration and Other Restrictive Covenants in the U.S. Labor Market (Mark D. Gough, Penn State) (Survey of 947 job seekers, Summer and Fall 2024 (report undated))
27. Morning Consult / Lift Our Voices, New York Voters Want Action on NDAs (Morning Consult memo for Lift Our Voices) (January 2025 (fielded December 19-26, 2024, n=1,004))
28. Morning Consult / Lift Our Voices, Gen Z Attitudes Towards Workplace Rights and Transparency (Morning Consult memo for Lift Our Voices) (November 2025 (fielded November 14-20, 2025))