Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued its decision in&nbsp;McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, holding that employers violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) when they offer employees severance agreements that contain broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. On March 22, 2023, the Board’s General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://admin.wnj.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Guidance-in-Response-to-Inquiries-about-the-McLaren-Macomb-Decision.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">memorandum</a>&nbsp;providing additional guidance on the Board’s&nbsp;McLaren Macomb&nbsp;decision. According to Abruzzo:

core/paragraph

Although severance agreements are typically proffered to employees upon the termination of their employment, such former employees remain entitled to the same protections under the Act and may play an important role in providing information to the Board.

core/list-item

Only the language of the severance agreement’s provisions determines their lawfulness. Circumstances surrounding the severance agreement do not matter when objectively analyzing whether its provisions are facially lawful. Additionally, an employee’s signature on a severance agreement is irrelevant because the mere proffer of an overly broad severance agreement may be coercive and unlawful under the Act.

A “savings clause,” such as “Nothing in this provision is intended to prohibit the employee from engaging in any other activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act,” likely fails to narrow non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions sufficiently to make them lawful under the Act. Instead, such provisions must address specific circumstances that justify the interference, restraint or coercion potentially imposed on an employee’s rights under the Act. For example, a narrowly-tailored and justified non-disparagement provision prohibiting defamatory statements about the employer may be lawful.

It is likely that only an unlawful provision – rather than the entire severance agreement – will be voided, even without a severability provision.

Although the Act generally does not protect supervisors, severance agreements that would prevent a supervisor from participating in Board proceedings, or retaliation against a supervisor for refusing to proffer an overly broad severance agreement, would be unlawful under the Act.

The Board’s decision in&nbsp;McLaren Macomb&nbsp;is presumed to apply retroactively. Further, maintaining or enforcing a previously entered severance agreement with unlawful provisions would constitute a continuing violation beyond the typical six-month limitations period.

core/list

In light of&nbsp;McLaren Macomb&nbsp;and this additional guidance, employers should revisit their severance agreements to assess their non-disparagement and confidentiality-related provisions. Please contact your Warner labor and employment attorney with questions.

Employment Litigation

Government Advocacy and Affairs

Labor and Employment

Employers: Proceed with Caution when Offering and Enforcing Severance Agreements

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.