NLRB Rules Against Routine Requests for Confidentiality in Ongoing Employer Investigations
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.14.12
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) held in Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Med. Ctr. & James A. Navarro, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012), that an employer violated federal labor law by instructing witnesses not to discuss with others the subject matter of an internal investigation while the investigation was pending. The Board ruled that the employer's "generalized concern with protecting the integrity of its investigation" did not outweigh the employees' protected right to discuss workplace matters with co-employees. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) grants employees the right to engage in "protected concerted activity" for their mutual aid and protection, which includes discussing amongst themselves the terms and conditions of their employment. Employers may, according to the Board, lawfully prohibit employees from discussing an ongoing investigation, but only if they can demonstrate a legitimate business need for confidentiality. To meet that burden, employers must show that specific witnesses need protection, that evidence is in danger of being destroyed, and/or that the confidentiality instruction is needed to prevent a cover-up. Without this specific showing, employers will likely be found to have infringed upon employees' Section 7 rights.
Banner Health, an Arizona hospital, instituted an investigation into an employee's alleged insubordination. Its human resources consultant interviewed the employee, as well as certain of his co-employees, regarding the incident that gave rise to the alleged insubordination. During the interviews, the consultant asked each witness not to discuss the matter with co-employees while the investigation was ongoing.
A three member panel of the NLRB, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling, rejecting his conclusion that the purpose of the confidentiality request, to protect the integrity of the investigation, rendered the confidentiality request lawful. The Board held that Banner Health failed to justify its prohibition on employee discussions regarding the investigation. Previous NLRB decisions, such as Caesar's Palace, 336 NLRB 271 (2001), had upheld confidentiality rules when needed to protect witnesses, preserve evidence, and ensure truthful testimony. In Banner Health, the NLRB concluded that concerns with respect to these matters will not be considered inherent to every workplace investigation. Rather, an employer must show an actual threat to the integrity of the ongoing investigation, not simply rely on a blanket concern for the integrity of investigations in general. Accordingly, Banner Health was ordered to cease and desist from maintaining or enforcing a rule that employees may not discuss with each other ongoing investigations of employee misconduct.
One panel member dissented, believing, as did the ALJ, that Banner Health's request for confidentiality was not unlawful because it was merely a suggestion, as opposed to a requirement. The majority disagreed, finding that the statement, whether a suggestion or an order, had a "reasonable tendency to coerce employees," and therefore was an unlawful restraint of their Section 7 rights.
It is important to note that the NLRB's ruling applies in union and non-union workplaces. Accordingly, all employers should make a specific assessment of the need for confidentiality relative to each investigation, before instructing – or even asking – that employees refrain from discussing the subject of the investigation with others. An automatic or "routine" request for confidentiality, without specific facts justifying the need for such a request, will not suffice. Furthermore, employers should review their general employment policies and/or agreements to ensure that they do not contain blanket confidentiality warnings that could reasonably interfere with employees' Section 7 rights. Should you have a question regarding when you may issue confidentiality instructions, please feel free to call your Crowell & Moring contact.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26



