July 7, 2026
Taking a new job has always involved a leap of faith. Wages and benefits may be easy to compare, but some of the most important aspects of a workplace—like its culture and treatment of staff—often remain hidden until after a worker arrives. Lack of information can leave new employees exposed to unpleasant or even toxic behavior, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, or wage theft.
New research suggests that one reason for this information gap is the widespread use of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, known as NDAs. Once associated primarily with protecting trade secrets, these agreements are now used by a majority of private-sector employers in the United States, and are increasingly used to prevent current and former employees from speaking publicly about negative workplace experiences. But despite growing public scrutiny, little research had examined how broad NDAs affect labor markets more generally.
In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Jason Sockin of Cornell University, Aaron Sojourner of the Upjohn Institute, and Evan Starr of the University of Maryland show that silencing workers who have negative information to share makes it harder for better employers to stand out, and harder for job seekers to avoid bad employers.
The issue gained national attention during the #MeToo movement, which revealed how companies had used NDAs to conceal allegations of sexual harassment and other misconduct. In response, lawmakers in California, New Jersey, and Illinois passed laws that prohibited firms from using NDAs to conceal illegal conduct at work. By narrowing NDAs, these laws made it less risky for current and former employees to share negative information on review websites such as Glassdoor.com, a key platform where job seekers can learn about potential employers.
Using data from millions of Glassdoor reviews, the authors find that laws narrowing NDAs increased the amount of negative information particularly in industries where NDAs are more prevalent. The average employer rating fell by about 6 percent, with the drop in ratings concentrated among previously low-rated firms. The range of ratings across firms within the same labor market widened, suggesting that high-road employers became easier to distinguish from low-road ones.
By multiple measures, workers were more willing to share negative information after the NDA laws were passed. Mentions of harassment increased 24 percent. The length of reviewer reports in the “Cons” field increased about 8 percent, while the average length of the “Pros” section did not change. And as a direct measure of worker voice, advice to management rose 6 percent.
Workers also became less likely to conceal aspects of their identity when disclosing information, presumably because they were less afraid of retaliation. Job seekers find information from less-anonymous sources more credible, so this change also boosted the value of reviews to potential employees.
The authors argue that workers’ silence comes at a high price. While narrow NDAs have legitimate purposes like protecting trade secrets, this study provides evidence that broad NDAs reduce workers’ willingness to share negative information, concealing bad behavior and inflating the reputations of low-road employers while making it more difficult for high-road employers to stand out. Policies that support workers’ ability to speak truthfully can increase accountability and improve the information available to job seekers, consumers, and competing firms alike.
Experts
