WASHINGTON (DC)
The Hill
Nov. 12, 2019
By Scott Altman
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in sexual harassment and assault cases are now at the center of a heated feminist debate. On one side, #MeToo leaders point out that repeat predators like Harvey Weinstein have used NDAs to silence victims and avoid detection and punishment while continuing to offend. The Catholic Church followed the same pattern in protecting pedophile priests. These scandals came to light in part because brave victims came forward in defiance of NDAs. The recent book “She Said” suggests that victims’ lawyers share some blame for abuse because they advise clients to sign NDAs.
On the other side, some feminists defend the use of NDAs. Gloria Allred, a feminist lawyer who has been targeted for such criticism, has defended her regular use of non-disclosure agreements. Allred points out that many victims value their privacy and reasonably prefer not to relive their assaults and harassment in public or to become publicly known as victims. As well, she argues that victims often have good reason to settle their claims rather than litigating, and without NDAs, perpetrators will not settle. According to Ms. Allred, NDAs expand victim choice — letting them decide whether to speak or be silent and whether to litigate or settle. Demanding that they sacrifice these benefits for the common good is unreasonable.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.