Are You Allowed To Discuss Your Salary With Co-Workers? 

Yes, you are legally allowed to discuss your salary with coworkers despite many employers attempting to discourage it. Federal law protects this right. 

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives employees the right to discuss wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, which promotes transparency and fairness in the workplace.

Some employers, however, include clauses in employment contracts or handbooks that restrict employees from discussing their pay. These “confidentiality clauses” often imply that salary discussions are prohibited, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that such restrictions can violate the NLRA. 

For example, in a notable case involving Jamison Dupuy, a temporary worker for Northeastern Land Services (NLS), Dupuy was fired for discussing pay issues with a client. NLS argued he had violated a confidentiality clause that required him to keep his compensation private. 

When Dupuy filed a complaint, the NLRB ultimately ruled in his favor, asserting that the clause was overly broad and could be interpreted as discouraging discussions about employment terms—a protected right under the NLRA.

Employment law experts, like Joseph Beachboard caution companies to review their confidentiality policies carefully. While employers can restrict the sharing of trade secrets or sensitive client information, they cannot legally prevent employees from discussing pay or working conditions with each other or union representatives. 

This is especially important for industries like staffing agencies, which may be inclined to keep wage information confidential to conceal profit margins between employee pay and client fees.

With recent court rulings supporting employees’ rights to discuss compensation, companies should be cautious about enforcing or including overly broad confidentiality clauses. 

In Dupuy’s case, the NLRB not only ordered his reinstatement but also mandated that NLS reimburse him for lost wages and benefits since his termination in 2001—a reminder that violating these protections can have significant consequences.