Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—1st Cir.: Oil service tech, fired on day he was cleared to return to work after knee surgery, has ADA claims revived
    • AGENCY NEWS—FTC and DOJ jointly issue antitrust guidelines for business activities affecting workers
    • AGENCY NEWS—Justice Department and OSHA warn against NDAs, can hinder antitrust reporting
    • DISCRIMINATION—AGE—N.D. Tex.: Texas anesthesiologist loses age discrimination case on summary judgment
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Miss.: White HR representative, fired for contributing to perceived racial disparities, partially advances claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—1st Cir.: Patient safety professional, fired for COVID vaccine noncompliance, stated religious discrimination claim
    • DOL NEWS—OSHA releases enforcement guidance regarding occupational injury and illness recording and reporting regulation
    • EEOC NEWS—Trucking company to pay $124K to settle allegations of sexual harassment
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Key Employment Law Issues Employers Need to Watch in 2025
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Salary Thresholds and Minimum Wage for 2025
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—EBSA proposes revisions, exceptions regarding fiduciary transactions
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—FAR proposed rule includes workforce requirements for IT & cybersecurity contracts
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—PBGC proposes corrections, clarifications, and improvements to certain regulations
    • LABOR PULSE—A look (way) back and (a little bit) forward, as Big Labor braces for Trump II
    • RETALIATION–D. Mass.: Police officer who resigned with charges pending fails to advance claim
    • STATE-LAW CLAIMS—9th Cir.: Civil detainees entitled to minimum wage under Washington law
    • TORT CLAIMS—D. Kan.: Wealth management industry employees' class action lawsuit survives dismissal motion by parent entity
    • WHITE HOUSE NEWS—President Biden issues statement to ‘affirm’ that the Equal Rights Amendment ‘is the law of the land’
    • WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with religious discrimination
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—Justice Department and OSHA warn against NDAs, can hinder antitrust reporting, (Jan 17, 2025)

    By WK Editorial Staff

    The two agencies issued a statement critical of NDAs that deter the reporting of antitrust crimes.

    The Justice Department and Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), jointly affirmed that corporate non-disclosure agr ...

    By WK Editorial Staff

    The two agencies issued a statement critical of NDAs that deter the reporting of antitrust crimes.

    The Justice Department and Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), jointly affirmed that corporate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that deter individuals from reporting antitrust crimes undermine the goals of whistleblower protection laws, including the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019 (CAARA). The announcement underscores the importance of whistleblower protections under CAARA, which safeguards employees who report potential antitrust crimes from retaliation. Specifically, CAARA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise retaliating against a worker for (1) reporting potential criminal antitrust violations and related crimes to their employer or the federal government or (2) assisting a federal government investigation or proceeding.

    The Justice Department and OSHA have made it clear that NDAs which discourage or prevent employees from reporting antitrust violations or assisting in federal investigations not only undermine CAARA but also risk significant consequences for employers. Such NDAs can affect the Antitrust Division's decisions on charging and sentencing, and may even lead to separate federal criminal charges if they are found to obstruct investigations. The joint statement highlights the critical role of whistleblowers in antitrust enforcement and the need for companies to align their NDAs and compliance programs with federal laws protecting these individuals.

    Whistleblower protections and antitrust enforcement. Antitrust violations, which can harm consumers, workers, and the economy, have been a focus of U.S. law enforcement for over a century. The Antitrust Division relies heavily on information from the public to detect and prosecute these crimes. CAARA enhances this enforcement by protecting employees, contractors, and agents from retaliation when they report potential antitrust violations to their employer or the government, or when they assist in investigations.

    The Justice Department emphasizes that the public is often best positioned to identify and report antitrust crimes. Therefore, ensuring that individuals can report misconduct without fear of retaliation is crucial for effective antitrust enforcement. The Antitrust Division values and protects the identity of those who report violations to the fullest extent of the law.

    The impact of restrictive NDAs. The use of NDAs that are overly broad or suggest that employees could face negative consequences for reporting misconduct poses a significant challenge to antitrust enforcement. Such agreements can deter individuals from coming forward with critical information, allowing antitrust crimes to go undetected and unchecked. This, in turn, undermines competition and the free-market economy.

    The Antitrust Division warns that NDAs which imply or explicitly state that reporting violations could lead to lawsuits or termination are in direct conflict with CAARA's objectives. These agreements not only discourage whistleblowers but also weaken the overall effectiveness of antitrust enforcement efforts.

    Consequences for companies. Companies that utilize NDAs to hinder reporting of antitrust violations face serious repercussions. The Antitrust Division's leniency policy, which encourages companies to cooperate fully with investigations, may be jeopardized if a company is found to interfere with employee cooperation. This policy requires companies to make every effort to secure honest and complete cooperation from both current and former employees.

    Moreover, the Antitrust Division's Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations guidelines take into account how NDAs and anti-retaliation policies are implemented. Prosecutors assess whether companies have mechanisms in place for employees to report potential violations anonymously or confidentially, without fear of retaliation. They also examine whether companies have anti-retaliation policies, provide training on CAARA, and ensure that NDAs do not deter whistleblowers.

    Failure to address these aspects in compliance programs can result in companies losing the benefits associated with an effective compliance structure when the Antitrust Division makes charging decisions and sentencing recommendations.

    Guidance for reporting and seeking protection. The announcement encourages individuals to report potential antitrust crimes to the Antitrust Division's Complaint Center. For cases related to government procurement, grant, or program funding, reports should be directed to the Procurement Collusion Strike Force Tip Center. Those who believe they have been victims of retaliation or seek more information on whistleblower protections can refer to the OSHA Fact Sheet.

    News: AgencyNews IndustryNewsTrends TortClaims Whistleblowers

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use