Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Settlement of Class Claims Against Trump Campaign

Last week I defended Donald Trump against allegations that he had broken a promise to buy “food for everyone.”  That gives me the credibility I need to cover the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the enforcement of the 2016 Trump campaign’s standard non-disclosure agreement (NDA).  We are nothing if not fair and balanced at the ContractsProf Blog.

We have covered Trump NDAs before here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  In sum, I think there are two main takeaways.  First, Donald Trump and organizations associated with him love NDAs.  Second, they tend to draft NDAs that are so preposterously overbroad as to be unenforceable.  The litigation does not go well for Mr. Trump and affiliated entities, and they do not seem to learn any lessons from the experience.  They keep losing and losing and yet never get tired of losing. 

Maggie Haberman reported in The New York Times back in February that the Trump campaign had agreed to pay $450,000 to settle claims brought by Jessica Denison on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.  Ms. Denison is to receive $25,000, and the rest will go to cover attorneys and court costs.  Ms. Denison alleged abusive treatment and sexual discrimination by a member of the campaign team.  The aim of settlement was to invalidate the NDA and free others to speak about their experiences as part of the Trump team during the 2016 campaign, and Ms. Denison is bringing her claims in a separate suit.  

In a June 7, 2023 order, the District Court noted its earlier order, invalidating the NDA as to Ms. Denison.  She sought an order invalidating it as to at least 422 potential class members.  That proved unnecessary, as the Campaign agreed in writing to release everyone associated with the Campaign from obligations created by the NDAs.  The Court further certifies the class and sets out procedures for notice to class members and a schedule for final approval of the settlement.