Congress against sexual harassment, part 1: Taxes

This arti­cle is the first of 3 parts to cov­er 3 Acts of Con­gress direct­ed at expand­ing the rights of sex­u­al harass­ment and abuse victims. 

The series of 3 federal laws on sexual harassment claims

  • Con­gress first in 2017, with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), lim­it­ed employ­er tax deduc­tions for set­tle­ments of sex­u­al harass­ment and abuse cas­es where the set­tle­ment agree­ment includ­ed a nondis­clo­sure agree­ment. That’s what this arti­cle is about.
  • Con­gress next in March 2022 passed the  End­ing Forced Arbi­tra­tion of Sex­u­al Assault and Harass­ment Act of 2021 which inval­i­dates arbi­tra­tion agree­ments over sex­u­al harass­ment and abuse claims, where the agree­ment is signed before a dis­pute arose. That’s my sec­ond arti­cle in this series.
  • Con­gress then in Decem­ber 2022 passed the Speak Out Act which inval­i­dat­ed nondis­clo­sure and non-dis­par­age­ment agree­ments in sex­u­al harass­ment and abuse claims where the agree­ments were pro­cured before a dis­pute arose. That’s my third arti­cle in this series.

2017: Congress disallows certain employer tax deductions from settlement of sexual harassment and abuse claims

I’ll start with arguably the most bor­ing of the laws, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”). It mod­i­fied the tax code to change lim­it tax deduc­tions tak­en by com­pa­nies for set­tle­ment mon­ey paid in cas­es involv­ing sex­u­al harass­ment or sex­u­al abuse. The full TCJA is here, but only a very small part of it deals with our issue.

In 26 U.S.C. § 162(a), busi­ness­es are allowed tax deduc­tions for “ordi­nary and nec­es­sary” expens­es incurred in car­ry­ing out the business.

New sec­tion 162(q) attacks nondis­clo­sure agree­ments (“con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments”) in sex­u­al harass­ment cas­es by pro­hib­it­ed the employ­er from deduct­ing mon­ey paid in set­tle­ment, includ­ing pay­ments for attor­neys’ fees, where the set­tle­ment con­cerned a claim for “sex­u­al harass­ment or sex­u­al abuse” and the set­tle­ment agree­ment involved a “nondis­clo­sure agree­ment”. Nondis­clo­sure or con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments are some­times called “hush agree­ments” in the pop­u­lar press.

The import of the nondis­clo­sure pro­vi­sion is that the employ­er pur­chas­es the silence of the employ­ee, in exchange for a pay­ment of set­tle­ment mon­ey, so that the employ­ee may not tell any­one about the alleged sex­u­al harass­ment of sex­u­al abuse that was the sub­ject of the legal claim.

The effect of 162(q) is that the employ­er may claim a deduc­tion for the set­tle­ment mon­ey and attor­ney’s fees in the same type of case if there is no nondis­clo­sure agree­ment. Thus, the cost of requir­ing nondis­clo­sure is that the employ­er may not deduct the set­tle­ment mon­ey and attor­neys’ fees.

Sec­tion 162(q) states:

Pay­ments relat­ed to sex­u­al harass­ment and sex­u­al abuse.–No deduc­tion shall be allowed under this chap­ter for–(1) any set­tle­ment or pay­ment relat­ed to sex­u­al harass­ment or sex­u­al abuse if such set­tle­ment or pay­ment is sub­ject to a nondis­clo­sure agree­ment, or (2) attor­ney’s fees relat­ed to such a set­tle­ment or payment.

26 U.S.C. § 162.

But if an employ­er wants a tax deduc­tion for the costs of set­tling a sex­u­al harass­ment claim, they won’t be able to also include a nondis­clo­sure agree­ment as one of the terms in the set­tle­ment. In oth­er words, if the employ­er wants the work­er to stay qui­et about what hap­pened to them, the employ­er can’t take the tax deduc­tion for the mon­ey spent to set­tle the case.

The movement against nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment claims

Back in 2019, there was a force­ful arti­cle in Atlantic Mag­a­zine, “Hush Con­tracts Cor­rupt Every­one Who Signs Them, which argued against forc­ing women to be silent about sex­u­al harass­ment as part of the set­tle­ment process. The argu­ment is that com­mon­place set­tle­ment nondis­clo­sure pro­vi­sions thwart the enforce­ment of the anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws by pre­vent­ing set­tling employ­ee from dis­cussing their alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al harass­ment, and by pre­vent­ing the employ­ee from coop­er­at­ing with oth­er lit­i­gants (unless subpoenaed). 

There has been a grow­ing move­ment against the use of nondis­clo­sure agree­ments in set­tling employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion claims. Sev­er­al states have now passed laws restrict­ing the use of nondis­clo­sure agree­ments in set­tling employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion claims. Some of those laws are lim­it­ed to sex­u­al harass­ment claims, but some of the states have much more broad­ly pro­hib­it­ed or restrict­ed use of nondis­clo­sure agree­ments in all forms of dis­crim­i­na­tion pro­hib­it­ed by state anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws. The Nation­al Wom­en’s Law Cen­ter has put togeth­er a very help­ful list of recent state laws address­ing work­place harass­ment, and sev­er­al of those laws specif­i­cal­ly lim­it use of nondis­clo­sure agree­ments. West Vir­ginia is not amongst the states lim­it­ing nondis­clo­sure agree­ments under claims involv­ing the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act.

Part 3 of this series will address the new fed­er­al Speak Out Act, passed in Decem­ber 2022, lim­it­ing use of nondis­clo­sure and nondis­par­age­ment agree­ments in cer­tain spe­cif­ic contexts.

Drew M. Capuder
Fol­low me:
Lat­est posts by Drew M. Capud­er (see all)

Leave a Reply