It should not be legal to enforce full stop. If you don't want to be disparaged, make your conduct worthy of not being disparaged. When you're being lied about, sue for defamation; "non-disparagement clauses" are redundant at best, an attack on free speech at worst.

▲

mathgradthrow 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't have to agree to a disparagement clause... She accepted a lot of money to agree to it.

▲

Hizonner 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's nice, but the rest of us didn't accept anything to agree to provide a legal system that would enforce it... and there's no reason we should.

▲

zeroonetwothree 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have a system of laws that decide which private contracts are enforceable and which are not. So we can try to change the law but as it stands we have decided that this one is enforceable.

FWIW I agree about not enforcing non disparagement clauses but legally that not the world we live in.

	▲	johnnyanmac 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"we" is a strong word here. More like some people 50-80 years ago decided to at worst rule against the worker's best interest, and at best chose to ignore it and pretend things would work out with a "gentlemans' agreement".

▲

wavemode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

...Huh? You want to be personally consulted before any law comes into effect?

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You make it sound like an a la carte option "I'll take the standard severance plus the non-disparagement bonus please!".

That's not how it works at most companies.

▲

alterom 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, clearly the employee and the company have the same leverage in negotiation here.

It's a free market! If she didn't like the offer, she could've just gotten herself fired from some other company instead. /s

▲

zeroonetwothree 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The company offers you money in exchange for signing certain agreements. You are free to decline. There is no obligation on either side.

If non disparagement clauses were illegal then perhaps the severance amounts would be smaller since there’s now much less value to the company.

▲

margalabargala 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral.

If someone gives you the option to accept $ to sign a contract agreeing not talk about something that is legal but morally bad, and you say yes, then talk about the thing, you will correctly be losing the lawsuit, no matter how bad the thing is.

▲

alterom an hour ago | parent [-]

>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral.

Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral.

Got it.

	▲	margalabargala 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head? If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?

▲

prepend 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

She was privileged to even get a severance. Most people just get fired.

▲

charcircuit 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

She can just reject the offer. Nothing can compel you to sign a contract you don't want to.

	▲	HarHarVeryFunny 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, but most people want to pay their bills, so they "want" to sign the severance agreement.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason they’re not redundant is that we, rightly, don’t allow people to sue for defamation for many kinds of unfair speech and even some kinds of untrue speech. It’s not defamatory for you to call me careless or mean or rude, even if I can produce ironclad proof that you know I’m careful and kind.