A good reminder not to sign contracts with non-disparagement clauses, if you can help it. Seems like good territory for California to ban like they did with non-competes. At the very least they should be restricted from inclusion in severance agreements - at that point the company already has you over a barrel.

▲

cmiles74 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure we can hold individuals responsible for signing these non-disparagement clauses. They often don't have a lawyer to review the paperwork and, I am sure, employers like Facebook aren't going to wait for a new hire to have a lawyer review that paperwork. There's a real pressure to sign everything with HR and get on to starting your new role.

Plus the power imbalance.

▲

prepend 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case the author is an attorney, so can presumably understand a contract she signed.

And the non-disparagement wasnt in her hire agreement, it was in her severance agreement, in exchange for a negotiated amount of money. Author was wealthy enough to afford dedicated lawyers to review.

▲

SauntSolaire 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you can't hold individuals responsible for signing contracts on the premise that they might not read them, you've simultaneously invalidated most contracts, increased the cost to enter a contract (essentially subsidizing the law industry), and severely limited the ability for individuals to enter into contracts — not to mention infantilizing adults who are fully capable of reading a document before signing it.

Furthermore, this was a severance agreement, not employment agreement, so having a lawyer review your contract is not going to delay you from starting your role.

I have my issues with this situation, but "they might not have read/understood the contract" isn't one of them.

	▲	cmiles74 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh no, I wasn't clear: I am sure people read these agreements. I think most of the time, they don't understand them. Also, we can't always understand how these agreements might be applied even if we do think that we understand them. I don't think we can hold people responsible for these types of contracts if they are under duress, for instance, under threat of the loss of their job. In this case the person signed in order to get the promised severance package, without which they wouldn't be able to continue with life-saving medical coverage, in my opinion that would also be under duress.

▲

RIMR 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, a reasonable non-disparagement clause for your current employees makes sense. You don't want your employees actively undermining the company in public. If they don't believe in what you're doing, they should be able to quit and say whatever they want. It should end immediately when your employment ends. It should be illegal to make it compulsary for severance packages, as many companies do.

And there need to be serious regulations about how these agreements can be used, and those regulations should protect whistleblowers at all costs. Like a public figure suing for libel/slander/defamation, the burden of proving statements false should rest entirely with the company.

	▲	SauntSolaire 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What's the need for a non-disparagement clause then? If they're a current employee, you have their continued employment as leverage.
	▲	jeffbee 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The clause in question didn't even arise until after employment ended. Again, this person faced no obligation to sign this contract. They wanted the payment, so they signed it.