Assembly Bill 248, which became Nevada law on July 1, 2019, prevents defendants in civil and administrative actions from requiring certain types of information be kept confidential in a settlement agreement. More specifically, a plaintiff cannot be precluded from disclosing information concerning claims of:

1. Conduct constituting a sexual offense;
2. Sex-based discrimination by an employer or landlord; or
3. Retaliation by an employer or landlord for the reporting of sex-based discrimination.

Settlement agreement language which violates these requirements is void and unenforceable. Courts are otherwise prohibited from entering orders that conflict with these requirements. Additionally, a plaintiff who is party to any of the above types of claims may require a settlement agreement to include language prohibiting the disclosure of plaintiff’s identity, as well as facts lending to the discovery of plaintiff’s identity.

Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this new law prevents settling parties from making the amount of a settlement confidential.

Takeaway

Be mindful of this law when handling claims against an employer or landlord client in civil court or before the Nevada Equal Rights Commission. Additionally, make sure your employer and landlord clients know about this legal development. Lastly, where applicable, consider adding language to the confidentiality provisions of your settlement agreements which expressly carves out the three categories of information where mandatory nondisclosure is prohibited.

Keep Reading

How to Handle FTB-Suspended Entities Products Liability Alert: “Non-Habit Forming” Claims Put Sleep-Aid Marketing Under Scrutiny Give a Number: Why Silence May Be the Defense’s Most Expensive Mistake Being a Good Human is Common Sense Fundamentals of Litigation: What NOT to Tell Your Expert Anatomy of a $12 Million Verdict – Part Three: How The Apex Could Have Changed the Trajectory of a Warren County, New Jersey Trucking Case The Guiding Light: Why I Became an Attorney More Isn’t Better if You Can’t Prove It Anatomy of a $12 Million Verdict—Part Two: How The Apex Could Have Changed the Trajectory of a Warren County Trucking Case

More by this author

Telemedicine: An Invaluable Weapon During the COVID-19 Crisis Telemedicine: Practice Trends and Risk Exposure Considerations Physician Burnout: An Ongoing Crisis Increasing the Risk of Medical Malpractice Claims New York Case Law Update New Law Affecting the Scope of Confidential Settlement Agreements in Nevada California Case Law Update Work Product Protection for Third Parties via Personal Injury Protection Insurance Colorado Case Law Updates The Scope of Legal Malpractice Damages