In this regard, it should be expressly stated in the Conciliation Agreement that the confidentiality clause does not prevent the worker from expressing legitimate concerns of public interest and does not waive, replace or replace his right of expression/disclosure in accordance with PIDA 1998. “I do not see any basis of principle or power to assess, in the initial phase, the accuracy of the label that the parties have attached to their `confidential` settlement agreement. The principle of open justice is not used. And no one has proposed, and I do not think it is debatable, that the Court of Justice, at this initial stage, should consider whether the confidentiality allegedly granted to the agreement would be applicable if it were challenged. I believe that the forced powers of the Court are invoked only if there is an execution phase and the principle of open justice is invoked. Since California law, which limits the application of confidentiality rules, only applies when a worker has filed a civil or administrative complaint, California employers should, to the extent possible, consider the desire to reach an agreement earlier. If a California employer is able to settle a right before a lawsuit begins, the employer has much greater flexibility with respect to workers` confidentiality obligations than after a lawsuit is filed. A number of States have enacted laws to prohibit the application of confidentiality rules in settlement agreements that clarify allegations of sexual harassment, other forms of harassment or discrimination. These States have chosen different approaches to the subject.