Summary

Janel Grant, a former WWE employee, said she filed a police report over online intimidation she believed could threaten her safety.

Grant said an officer contacted WWE and the state, and she was later told WWE did not return the officer’s phone call.

Grant and her attorney, Erica Nolan, gave testimony on March 2, 2026 before the Connecticut Labor and Public Employees Committee while urging legislation to ban workplace NDAs that silence misconduct victims.

Janel Grant testimony raises pressure around NDA reform and workplace-safety response

Grant publicly linking an intimidation complaint to a reported lack of response after police outreach adds immediate weight to the Connecticut hearing, because it frames NDA reform as a current worker-safety issue rather than only a legal-policy debate.

Nolan’s testimony also broadens the focus beyond one case by describing how NDA enforcement pressure can affect people reporting misconduct, which could influence how lawmakers frame worker protections in future hearings.

Quotes

Quote from Janel Grant

“This past week alone, I filed a police report because I noticed some intimidation tactics online playing out that were potentially going to pose a threat and jeopardize my safety in some way that I could not ignore. I called the police. They took a report. The officer reached out to WWE and to the state. When I got the report yesterday, WWE did not return the police officer’s phone call.”

Quote from Erica Nolan

“For someone bound by an NDA, intimidation does not have to be loud or obvious – it can be as simple as a letter from a lawyer reminding a victim of what they signed. In Ms. Grant’s case, however, the intimidation has been both loud and obvious. She has faced public retaliation, exposure of her personal information, witness intimidation, and even public mockery on national television of what she experienced.”

Erica Nolan later went on to say:

“This is not about punishing employers; it is about protecting workers here in Connecticut. NDAs are often framed as neutral tools, but when used in cases involving misconduct, they function primarily to protect the employer, not the employee.”