Theresa May has struck at the "immoral" use of confidentiality agreements after it became known that the UK Supreme Court had stopped a newspaper calling a leading businessman at the center of sexual harassment and racist abuse. www.socialistgroup.eu/gpes/sessiond…05&place=STR Minister said on Wednesday it was "clear" that some employers were acting "non – ethical" for confidentiality agreements.
Ms. May responded to Jess Phillips, a Labor MP who had previously threatened to use parliamentary privileges to executive that the Daily Telegraph could not be identified.
During Prime Minister's questions in the House of Commons, Ms. Phillips, who was a vociferous campaign for the problems of women in Britain, said, "It seems that our laws allow wealthy and powerful men to do as much as they want as long as they pay to keep it quiet. "
NDAs were criticized for being used by the rich and powerful to silence sexual victims
Ms. May said she could not make a case before the courts However, she assured her parliamentarians that her government is still considering considering the use of NDAs or so-called strangulation clauses.
Downing Street initially pledged to investigate the use of NDAs in January following the Financial Times' disclosures about the behavior of some guests at the Presidents Club Charity Dinner, a charity event for men.
Hostesses at The event, some of whom said they had been sexually molested, were asked to sign NDAs in advance. Many of the women who spoke out about sexual harassment via Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein also signed the legally binding agreements.
The Prime Minister said on Wednesday to MPs: "The Government will propose measures for consultation Improve the regulation around non-disclosure agreements and make them absolutely explicit for employees, if a non-disclosure agreement is not valid or can not be enforced."
Before asking the Prime Minister, Ms. Phillips told the FT that if the victims of the unidentified businessman spoke up and agreed to name her in the lower house, she would be ready to do so.
"It should be called as long as the victim wants, it can not be right for the rich to buy silence," she said.
Following the imposition of the Telegraph staking order, the United Kingdom Court of Appeals found that five employees who had filed allegations against the executive had received "substantial payments" in settlement transactions. This "compromises" their complaints, the judges said. The comparisons contained confidentiality agreements.
Judges Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson have overturned a Supreme Court ruling in August stating that the newspaper should not be gagged.
Except for the newspaper, their verdict did not mention anyone involved in the case. It was said that the applicants who had applied for the injunction were "two companies in the same group and a senior officer of that group".
It identified those who had made allegations against the executive as "five employees of affiliates" who had accused the management of "discriminatory behavior". Three of them had filed their claims before a labor tribunal.
"On July 1
In an editorial on Wednesday entitled "The public has a right to know when the powerful are trying to strangle the vulnerable," the Telegraph argued that preventing alleged abuse victims was not an appropriate application of secrecy agreements.
A Labor Party spokesman said the party was "committed to ensuring that confidentiality agreements that prevent disclosure of victimization, harassment or discrimination are no longer legal."