David Greenhalgh, employment partner at Excello Law, has written a thought-provoking article for HR Magazine discussing the controversial role of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in employment disputes. You can read the original article here: HR Magazine – David Greenhalgh on NDAs.
In response to growing pressure from campaign groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed and Can’t Buy My Silence to ban NDAs in cases involving workplace harassment or discrimination, Greenhalgh offers a more nuanced view grounded in his experience representing affected employees, particularly women facing pregnancy-related discrimination or sexual harassment.
While acknowledging that many of the personal stories shared by campaigners are deeply troubling, he argues against an outright ban. He writes:
“In my experience as an employment lawyer, it is often the case that once an employee feels they have been compensated financially for what they have been through, they just want to find a new employer that will treat them better and move on quietly.”
David emphasises that NDAs are not always imposed by employers to silence victims. In many cases, former employees actively seek confidentiality as a way to draw a line under a painful chapter in their lives. He believes NDAs can offer security and a sense of closure when used appropriately.
He also challenges common misconceptions, noting:
“There are misconceptions about NDAs and it is often wrongly reported that signing one completely shuts the employee down. However, settlement agreements always expressly allow for the former employee to whistleblow and report matters to the police.”
David acknowledges the grim statistics: 40% of women report experiencing sexual harassment at work, with higher numbers among disabled, Black, and minority ethnic groups. Campaigners have highlighted that over 400,000 UK mothers have signed NDAs after experiencing bullying, harassment, or discrimination — with some suffering serious mental health consequences. Still, Greenhalgh argues that these agreements, when entered into voluntarily, can serve both parties.
He also points out that employment dynamics often shift after employees return from maternity leave — sometimes leading to irreconcilable differences that settlement agreements (including NDAs) can help resolve without prolonged legal disputes.
The legal landscape continues to evolve. As of October, new legislation will require employers to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. While Greenhalgh supports a workplace culture where harassment is not tolerated, he maintains that NDAs still have a valid role in helping employees and employers part ways respectfully.
Ultimately, his message is clear: rather than banning NDAs outright, we need a better understanding of when and how they are used – and ensure they serve the interests of those most affected.
