Who is using gagging orders

Or does the settlement give you such a substantial amount more of money that it would be enough to purchase your silence? But, if you sign a settlement agreement and get the money in the bank you can just move on. A lot of people just want to get another job and move on from the whole thing.

Making them go through a 2 year court case is probably the last thing they want to happen to them. Also, employment law legal aid was cut a long time ago, therefore, how do you fund that court case? How do you afford a lawyer? The whole thing in practice is a bit of a nightmare. She reported it to the police, but there was no concrete evidence it was her harasser.

Now a campaigner to end sexual misconduct in higher education with The Group, Dr Chapman wants "to see this culture of silence banished and confidentiality waivers being given as standard, so that victims can protect their careers and universities are held to account". UCL says it no longer uses NDAs for cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, but acknowledges that "historically" it has "not always got the balance right".

UCL is no exception. The BBC sent Freedom of Information requests to UK universities, asking how much they had paid in settlements that included "gagging clauses". Many universities said they were unable to disclose why the agreements were signed, so it is unclear how many relate to allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. Some universities attributed the bulk of their multi-million NDA spending to voluntary redundancy packages, but lawyers question whether, if such cases were truly voluntary, gagging clauses would be needed.

Ms Calvert-Lee said that universities have to provide independent legal advice to affected staff, but that this is usually only "enough time to talk through the agreement and not about the circumstances that have led to it". Universities UK, which represents institutions, said it was important to note that signing an NDA "does not prevent staff or students from reporting criminal acts to the police or regulatory bodies, or from making a disclosure under The Public Interest Disclosure Act ".

This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. I felt like a lone voice calling out issues [with HS2] but these gagging orders not only gag companies but also thousands of employees which are involved in the HS2 project. A lot of these projects have nothing to do with accountability and local democracy.

Like what you've read? To receive New Civil Engineer's daily and weekly newsletters click here. Tagged with: Gagging order hs2. I accept the argument for sometimes keeping price sensitive information secret but this all-embracing approach by HS2 stinks to high heaven. For example, what sensitive information are charities privy to which merits a gagging order? What have HS2 got to hide, apart of course from devious and deceptive behaviour over cost estimates?

I shall certainly not be donating to any of these charities ever again. The latter term is highly emotive and implies something much more draconian. Maybe someone could enlighten me. So, what can you do when it comes to gagging orders in a settlement agreement? The Walker case is that he was allegedly forced from his position in after he raised concerns that patient safety was being compromised because of the drive to hit government set targets. MP and health committee chairman Stephen Dorrell waded into the argument urging health secretary Jeremy Hunt to ensure that the trust was prevented from taking any action which may prevent Mr Walker giving evidence to the committee that was investigating the standards at 14 trusts.

In , a number of allegations of sexual harassment were made against Sir Philip Green and it emerged that five employees who made the allegations all had gagging orders included in their settlement agreements which prevented them from speaking out about their experiences. The main issue around gagging orders is where they are used, not only to silence the employee, but as a way to avoid dealing with the problem.

The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee said in that gagging orders were being abused by some companies and leading to complaints of sexual harassment not even being investigated. The approach that companies were taking were to ignore the problem, pay off the victim and allow the perpetrator to remain employed and continue to harass employees in the work place.

Many of our clients use settlement agreements as a way to deal with employee terminations that run a high risk of ending up in an employment tribunal. They are used when it becomes apparent that a particular employee no longer has a future with the business for a variety of reasons but dismissing them through the normal process is not achievable.

They can also be used when an employer acknowledges that they have made a mistake and are unlikely to be successful in an employment tribunal setting. Rather than dragging both parties through the tribunal process and incurring large legal fees, the employer enters into a settlement agreement with the employee. In return for signing the settlement agreement, an employee receives a financial settlement and agrees not to bring a tribunal claim, therefore in effect waiving their rights under key pieces of employment legislation.

Most settlement agreements do contain a clause requiring that both employee and employer do not disclose the terms of the agreement or the reasons behind its existence. The difference with the Walker case, and where gagging orders are used to prevent the reporting of sexual harassment is that one outcome of the agreement is that it prevents the employee from raising issues of genuine public interest.

In the Walker case, he would be offered protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act and this is not a right that you can sign away in a settlement agreement. We work a lot with care homes and this is another sector which has come under fire regarding standards of care to clarify none of our clients provide anything other than exceptional levels of care.

If a care home was to try to enter into an agreement with an employee who threatened to take evidence of poor care to the press, then it is unlikely that they would be able to enforce a gagging clause regardless of how much they had paid to the ex-employee.