Your Severance Agreement Says You Cannot Say Anything. It May Be Lying to You.

You signed a severance agreement.  It had a non-disparagement clause.  The language said you could not say, write, or do anything to disparage or defame the company – to anyone.  You were told this was standard.

I see this pattern often enough that there is a settled way to look at it.

Non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements have limits under federal labor law that most employees – and many employers – do not know about.  Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees employees the right to engage in concerted activity, which includes discussing working conditions with coworkers and filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board.  Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits employers from interfering with those rights through the terms of a severance agreement.

In McLaren Macomb, decided by the NLRB in 2023, the Board held that non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses that restrict employees from speaking about working conditions or disclosing the agreement’s contents to the Board violate Section 7 rights.  That ruling has survived into the second Trump administration.  On March 3, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi held in Valley Radiology, P.A. that Valley Radiology violated Section 8(a)(1) by offering exactly this kind of language: a clause prohibiting the employee from saying, writing, or doing anything to disparage or defame the company, and a confidentiality clause prohibiting disclosure of the agreement’s fact or contents to anyone.  The ALJ ordered the employer to rescind or revise those provisions.

The practical point is not that non-disparagement clauses are unenforceable.  They can be valid.  The point is that overbroad clauses – the kind that sweep in concerted activity, Board complaints, or discussions about working conditions – are vulnerable.  If a clause would bar you from telling a coworker that you were laid off, or from filing a charge with a government agency, it may already be unenforceable as written.

If you signed a severance agreement with this kind of language and you are wondering what it actually restricts, the answer depends on the specific clause language, how it interacts with your protected activity, and what jurisdiction governs your employment.  That analysis is fact-specific.

If the pattern sounds familiar, contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation.  The facts determine whether you have a claim – and how much of a conversation that takes.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces.  It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result.  Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes.  AI may have been used to create this post.  All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.