Connecticut lawmakers and witnesses spar over bill limiting nondisclosure agreements in workplaces

Senators and representatives heard extended testimony on SB 10‑35, a bill that would limit the use of nondisclosure agreements in cases of workplace harassment, discrimination, and abuse. Proponents said NDAs are often used to silence victims and enable repeat offenders; opponents argued the bill would prohibit voluntary agreements and make private settlements harder to achieve.

Senator Mae Flexer, a prime proponent, told the committee that NDAs routinely extend beyond trade secrets to cover misconduct that should be discussed publicly. "People don't realize that when they're signing an NDA, it also covers these other types of behavior like discrimination, like harassment, like workplace abuse," she said, pressing the committee to adopt a Washington‑style approach that removes silence as a condition of settlement.

Representative William Blumenthal, who co‑sponsors the bill, said the agreements perpetuate toxic workplaces by hiding misconduct. "Toxic workplaces and abusers in those workplaces rely on silence to persist," Blumenthal said, adding that many workers lack bargaining power or legal counsel when NDAs are presented at hire or in early settlements.

Opponents framed the proposal as an intrusion on contractual freedom. Senator Dan Sampson, posing a frequent line of questioning, asked whether an NDA is not "something that is signed by the employee voluntarily and often in exchange for a settlement figure." He and other skeptical members repeatedly asked proponents whether the measure would remove an employee's ability to accept a payment in exchange for silence.

Proponents replied that the bill is narrowly written to preserve employers' ability to protect proprietary information while preventing blanket silence about harassment and discrimination; they emphasized pre‑dispute NDAs signed at hire and the unequal bargaining positions many workers face. Representative Blumenthal said the bill is not intended to force victims to speak, but to ensure that employers cannot compel silence as a condition of employment or settlement.

Business and employer groups urged the committee to reject or narrow the bill. Brooke Foley of the Insurance Association of Connecticut said the bill was overly broad and would discourage private settlements by making confidentiality unenforceable, creating greater litigation risk and reputational exposure for employers. The Connecticut Business & Industry Association also recommended no action, arguing the bill's language depends on subjective "reasonable belief" standards that could invite frivolous litigation.

Members asked for supporting data. Witnesses cited a Hartford Courant/Morning Consult poll reported in testimony showing 76% of Connecticut voters support banning NDAs for workplace abuse and harassment and a cited figure that as many as one‑third of workers sign NDAs at hire. Representative Weir and others asked for the underlying sources so committee staff can review the methods and context.

No formal action was taken. Committee members signaled interest in clarifying language on retroactivity — proponents said the bill would not retroactively void NDAs executed after a dispute arose but would affect pre‑dispute NDAs — and in sharpening definitions to preserve legitimate confidentiality for trade secrets, HR processes and for agreements where employers alone are bound.

Ending: The bill drew bipartisan questions and competing policy priorities: protect victims and workplace transparency versus preserve voluntary settlement mechanisms. Committee members requested source materials and follow‑up language before any vote.