Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message

×

News & Education

Back to Employment Law News Feed

Filter by:

SEC Attacks Language Commonly Used in Settlement and Severance Agreements

Introduction
Employers take note – the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has begun to target routine language used in nearly every employment, severance and settlement agreement regarding confidentiality and an employee’s waiver of the right to share in any monetary awards obtained by a governmental agency. Examples of these clauses include the following:

“The Employee shall not disclose to any person or entity not expressly authorized by the Company any Confidential Information or Trade Secrets... [Y]ou shall not be restricted from disclosing or using Confidential Information or Trade Secrets that are required to be disclosed by law... however,... in the event disclosure is required by law, you shall provide the Company’s Legal Department with prompt written notice of such requirement...”

“Employee further acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Agreement prevents Employee from filing a charge with [any federal agency]; however, Employee understands and agrees that Employee is waiving the right to any monetary recovery in connection with any such complaint or charge that Employee may file...”

Applicable SEC Rule
The SEC’s position derives from 17 CFR § 240.21F-17 (Rule 21F-17) regarding communications between the SEC and individuals reporting possible securities law violations. Rule 21F-17 was implemented after the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and states that:

“No person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement... with respect to such communications.”

The SEC’s position is similar to positions taken previously by both the National Labor Relations Board (NLRD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in other contexts. In short, these agencies assert that employers are prohibited from taking any action that impinges upon an employee’s ability to bring complaints to federal agencies.

Recent SEC Enforcement Actions
Two recent SEC enforcement actions illustrate the risk to employers that do not consider Rule 21F-17 when drafting agreements.

First on August 10, 2016, the SEC settled an enforcement action against a publicly traded company based in Atlanta, Georgia. The company required departing employees to waive their rights to monetary recovery if they filed a charge or complaint with the SEC or other federal agency and prohibited disclosure of confidential information or trade secrets unless compelled to do so by law, and only after first notifying the company and obtaining written consent. The SEC asserted that these provisions violated Rule 21F-17 because they raised impediments to participation in the SEC’s whistleblower program and removed financial incentives that encourage employees to communicate with the SEC. To resolve the matter, the company agreed to:


  • Pay a monetary penalty of $265,000;

  • Modify the language in its severance agreements; and

  • Provide certain notices to employees who signed the offending severance agreements.

Second, on August 16, 2016, the SEC settled an enforcement action with another publicly traded entity. Similar to the prior settlement, the SEC found that a waiver and release of claim provision in the company’s severance agreements violated Rule 21F-17. The provision provided that departing employees were not restricted from filing charges or “participating in any investigation or proceeding before any federal or state agency, or governmental body;” but that the employees “waive[d] any right to any individual monetary recovery... based on any communication by Employee to any federal, state, or local government agency or department.” The SEC found that this provision impinged on Rule 21F-17’s whistleblower program by removing “critically important financial incentives that are intended to encourage persons to communication directly with the [SEC] staff about possible securities law violations.” As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $340,000 for the violation.

Comment
All publicly traded employers may wish to reconsider whether to keep the confidentiality and monetary waiver language traditionally used in employment and severance agreements. Although some employers will retain this language for deterrent value (notwithstanding the SEC’s enforcement actions), appropriate thought should be given to balancing the pros and cons of the language used.

Although the SEC has not targeted closely held businesses so far, such businesses may also want to consider the language used in employment and severance agreements. This is true not only because the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower has noted that Rule 21F-17’s language is intentionally broad and arguably applicable to private companies that contract with publicly traded firms, but also because the EEOC, the NLRB and the Department of Labor have raised concerns about similar language in other contexts and will likely make an even harder push given the SEC’s early success in securing notable settlements.

For further information please contact DeWitt attorneys Scott Paler or Wes Webendorfer by phone at (608) 255-8891 or email sxp@dewittllp.com or jww@dewittllp.com.

About the Authors

Scott Paler is a Partner practicing out of our Madison office. He is Chair of the Background Screening practice group and a member of the Labor & Employment and Litigation practice groups. Contact Scott by email or by phone at (608) 252-9213.

Wesley Webendorfer is an attorney practicing out of our Madison office. He is a member of the Labor & Employment Relations and Litigation practice groups. Contact Wes by email or by phone at (608) 252-9368.

Disclaimer

One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations

Madison

2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions

Minneapolis

2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions


Get to know us

DeWitt LLP is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly 140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Leadership
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us

Partners

We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia and an active member of SCG Legal, an association of more than 140 independent law firms serving businesses in all 50 state capitals and major commercial centers around the world.

Awards

Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018
  • BLF-Badge-2019

NOTICE

While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.