Interactive guide loads in your browser.
The Speak Out Act (2022)
For a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute, “no nondisclosure clause or nondisparagement clause agreed to before the dispute arises shall be judicially enforceable in instances in which conduct is alleged to have violated Federal, Tribal, or State law” (42 U.S.C. § 19403(a)). The Act expressly preserves the ability to protect trade secrets and proprietary information (§ 19403(d)) and lets states keep laws that are at least as protective (§ 19403(b)).
The DTSA immunity notice
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 added 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). An individual can’t be held criminally or civilly liable under any federal or state trade secret law for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a court filing made under seal. Employers must give notice of this immunity in any agreement with an employee that governs trade secrets or confidential information (§ 1833(b)(3)); “employee” includes contractors and consultants (§ 1833(b)(4)). Without the notice, the employer can’t recover exemplary damages or attorney fees under the DTSA against that employee. Every NDAForge template includes the notice.
SEC Rule 21F-17
“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 (17 CFR § 240.21F-17(a)).
NLRA Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157)
Most private-sector, non-supervisory employees have a federally protected right to discuss wages, hours and working conditions. Employee templates here say so expressly.
State rules (examples)
California: Government Code § 12964.5 makes it unlawful to require an employee to sign an agreement denying the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, and requires specific carve-out wording in provisions that restrict discussing workplace conditions. Washington: RCW 49.44.211 voids employer–employee provisions barring discussion of conduct the employee reasonably believes is illegal discrimination, harassment, retaliation, a wage and hour violation or sexual assault. Other states have their own rules; check the state where the worker is based.
Sources: 42 U.S.C. §§ 19401–19404 and 18 U.S.C. § 1833 (Cornell Legal Information Institute); 17 CFR § 240.21F-17 (Cornell LII); Cal. Gov. Code § 12964.5 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov); RCW 49.44.211 (app.leg.wa.gov). Checked September 2026.