Justice Sullivan also noted that several courts have « rejected FLSA agreements that contain confidentiality provisions that limit the complainants` ability to speak about the transaction. » The Court recognized that « in some cases, confidentiality provisions may unduly limit the applicants` ability to discuss comparisons, » thereby undermining FLSA`s objectives and the public interest in ensuring that workers receive fair wages. However, according to the Tribunal, the FLSA « does not impose a confidentiality clause in comparisons. » Instead, « the fairness of restrictions on the ability of parties to disclose the details of a transaction depends on the particular circumstances of a particular case. » In the circumstances of this case, the Court held that the restrictions were fair. The agreement stated that the complainants and their lawyer « will have no contact with the media or social media regarding this transaction or its terms » and, if contacted, « no comment » or « the matter is settled. »  Although this topic does not fit within the scope, regulatory agencies have recently reported a reference that has affected the admissibility of confidentiality clauses in all types of employment contracts (including transaction agreements in non-FLSA cases), particularly agreements involving financial services employers and employers with federal contracts. You will find a wide-ranging discussion about this under Amanda D. Haverstick, « Revising Nondisclosure and Nondisparage clauses, » The Legal Intelligencer (July 22, 2015) (Analysis of recent regulatory actions – including the Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Office of Inspector General – which have denounced all types of labour law agreements that contain overly broad confidentiality and/or non-proliferation provisions). The parties eventually entered into a transaction agreement and submitted it to the Court for approval. The agreement provided that Lola and two others who chose to sue (and the plaintiffs` lawyers) would receive a total of $75,000 in exchange for dismissing the complaint, releasing the rights against the accused and limiting the disclosure of the terms of the transaction. (Reuters) – Employers have a strong incentive to hide their comparisons with employees who claim wage and hourly infractions. If these agreements are kept secret, the risk of other staff being introduced is minimized. For the defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is probably a good bet to throw some extra money at the complainants who agree to keep the transactions confidential. This extra money, of course, gives employees a good reason to adhere to secrecy.