Drafting Severance Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Terms Before the NLRB Changes the Rule

Peter J. Gillespie
Peter J. Gillespie
Laner Muchin

Peter J. Gillespie is a partner in Laner Muchin’s Chicago office, where his counseling and transactional work centers on employment agreements and his litigation practice on employment contract disputes. He defends employers in claims and investigations brought by the EEOC, OSHA, and the U.S. Department of Labor, and litigates breach of executive employment contract cases, non-compete and trade secrets matters, and occupational safety proceedings.

William G. Wake
William G. Wake
Laner Muchin

William G. Wake is a partner in Laner Muchin’s Chicago office whose management-side labor and employment practice encompasses collective bargaining, day-to-day labor relations counseling, and defense of employers before administrative agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 18, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The rule your severance templates were built for may not survive the year

McLaren Macomb has not been overruled. But three things changed around it. The Board lost its quorum and recovered it. The General Counsel rescinded GC 23-05. And a concurrence in Prime Communications signaled imminent doctrinal change. The standard on the books is no longer the standard you can plan on.

Rescinding GC 23-05 did not eliminate prosecution risk. ALJs and the full Board still apply McLaren Macomb. Valley Radiology, Prime Communications, and Detrex Corporation mark the 2026 exposure line. A 34.7% dismissal rate for ULP charges changes the calculus, not the legal standard. Overbroad confidentiality language still draws findings.

You leave with a clause-by-clause standard for each provision type. A defamation-standard safe harbor for non-disparagement. The real limits of a savings clause. Bifurcated templates for supervisory employees, and a monitoring checklist tied to Valley Radiology. These are judgment calls under a moving standard — the work no clause library makes for you.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Board Composition Risk
    How the NLRB's quorum loss, its recovery, and current Board composition set the timeline on which your severance templates have to be revised.
  • The Controlling Standard
    What McLaren Macomb requires of severance language, what it overruled, and how the three-regime problem — McLaren Macomb, the explicit-waiver test, and Baylor/IGT — changes how you draft today.
  • The 2026 Case Record
    What Valley Radiology, Prime Communications, and Detrex Corporation establish about current exposure, including the unresolved Valley Radiology remedy question and the settlement posture it drives.
  • Enforcement Climate Assessment
    Why the rescission of GC 23-05 and a 34.7% ULP dismissal rate shift prosecution risk without shifting the legal standard a client is measured against.
  • Drafting Both Provisions
    A clause-by-clause standard for confidentiality provisions that survive any standard and for non-disparagement provisions built on the defamation-standard safe harbor.
  • Structural Drafting Traps
    What a savings clause can and cannot cure, how cooperation and nondisclosure provisions create exposure, and when a bifurcated template for supervisory employees is warranted.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 18, 2026

  • 2:30 pm – 4:40 pm Eastern
  • 1:30 pm – 3:40 pm Central
  • 12:30 pm – 2:40 pm Mountain
  • 11:30 am – 1:40 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Peter J. Gillespie, Partner | Laner Muchin

Peter J. Gillespie is a partner in Laner Muchin’s Chicago office, where his counseling and transactional work centers on employment agreements and his litigation practice on employment contract disputes. He defends employers in claims and investigations brought by the EEOC, OSHA, and the U.S. Department of Labor, and litigates breach of executive employment contract cases, non-compete and trade secrets matters, and occupational safety proceedings. His practice also covers class action wage and hour disputes, discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims, and ERISA, disability, and leave-law matters. He conducts wage and hour compliance audits and workplace investigations, and trains executives and managers on documentation practices, hiring, leave, discrimination, social media, and workplace safety.

  • Education & Credentials

Peter earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1997 and his B.A. in Economics and German Studies from Northwestern University in 1992. He is admitted to practice in Illinois and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. His federal trial court admissions include the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Western District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Peter has been listed in Best Lawyers in America for Employment Law – Management from 2024 to the present, and he was named a Chick Evans Scholar. He chairs the Membership and Diversity Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology Law and serves on the editorial board of The SciTech Lawyer.

  • Professional Involvement

Peter writes the Illinois Human Resources Manual, published annually by American Chamber of Commerce Resources, and contributed to the 2020 edition of Conducting the Employment Practices Audit for the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education. He is a contributing author to The Internet of Things: Legal Issues, Policy and Practical Strategies for the ABA Section of Science and Technology Law, and his articles have appeared in The SciTech Lawyer in Winter 2021 and Spring 2017. He contributes regularly to the firm’s Fast Laner legal updates and has been quoted in Bloomberg Law on workplace COVID-19 litigation risk. He is a member of the Chicago Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

  • Experience

Peter’s representative matters include defending employers against EEOC, OSHA, and Department of Labor claims, breach of executive employment contract cases, class action wage and hour disputes, employment discrimination and retaliation cases, and prevailing wage issues. He is a frequent presenter to practitioner and management audiences, speaking on employee privacy in the hybrid work era at PLI’s Institute on Privacy and Cybersecurity Law in 2023 and on employment law updates at the 2021 Annual Employment Law Virtual Conference.

 

William G. Wake, Partner | Laner Muchin

William G. Wake is a partner in Laner Muchin’s Chicago office whose management-side labor and employment practice encompasses collective bargaining, day-to-day labor relations counseling, and defense of employers before administrative agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board. He also defends class action wage and hour matters and employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation cases, conducts corporate investigations into harassment, retaliation and discrimination, and counsels employers in the temporary staffing, logistics, manufacturing, and educational sectors.

  • Education & Credentials

William earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2012 and his B.S. from Kansas State University in 2006. He is admitted to practice in Illinois and before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

  • Recognition & Leadership

William received the Illinois Emerging Lawyer designation from Leading Lawyers in 2017.

  • Professional Involvement

William’s published work addresses NLRB doctrine directly: he co-authored “The NLRB Turns Employer Handbooks From Useful Evidence To Potential Liabilities Under The NRA” for the 2016 Employment Law Update. He is a member of the Chicago Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

  • Experience

William represents management in collective bargaining and provides day-to-day labor relations counseling, and he defends employers in proceedings before administrative agencies including the National Labor Relations Board. Beyond that traditional labor work, he defends class action wage and hour matters and employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, and conducts corporate investigations regarding harassment, retaliation, and discrimination. He counsels employers across the temporary staffing, logistics, manufacturing, and educational sectors, and trains managers and executives on leave, disability, discrimination, harassment, and hiring practices.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Severance Agreement Charges at the NLRB: The 2026 Enforcement Record | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session surveys the NLRB’s live enforcement record on severance agreement confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions from 2025 through mid-2026, tracing the impact of the Board’s quorum loss and recovery, the rescission of GC 23-05, and the continued application of McLaren Macomb by ALJs and the full Board. Attorneys will learn what the three 2026 decisions — Valley Radiology, Prime Communications, and Detrex Corporation — establish about current enforcement risk, what the Prime Communications concurrence signals about imminent doctrinal change, and how rising regional dismissal rates have reshaped the practical prosecution landscape. Attendees will leave able to assess a client’s current exposure under existing precedent and anticipate the conditions under which that precedent could be overruled.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Writing Severance Clauses That Survive an NLRB Reversal | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session provides a clause-by-clause drafting framework for severance confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions that remain defensible regardless of whether the NLRB overrules McLaren Macomb, adopts the GC’s explicit-waiver test, or reinstates the Baylor/IGT standard. Attorneys will examine the specific language that has drawn ALJ findings through 2026, learn what savings clauses can and cannot cure, and identify how cooperation/nondisclosure provisions and bifurcated templates for supervisory employees fit into a compliant drafting strategy. Attendees leave with a working standard for each provision type and a monitoring checklist tied to the Valley Radiology proceeding and Board composition developments through mid-2026.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars