4 ms·

In the firm I work for, we deal with much secret information and many paranoid clients. Generally when someone is terminated we give them a severance contingent

In the firm I work for, we deal with much secret information and many paranoid clients. Generally when someone is terminated we give them a severance contingent on signature of a pretty ironclad non-disparagement letter and a further reinforcement of existing NDA. You could extend this concept to this situation, crafting a letter such that if he does ever leak that data, his liability is assured and his incentives are aligned with yours. This is a time to spend a bit of money and speak to your external counsel. They will have a good solution for you.

davelnewton 11y ago
NDA and non-disparagement are radically different things; I have zero issues with NDA, I'd take umbrage at not being able to say a place I used to work at sucks.
- xraystyle 11y ago
  To me, non-disparagement agreements are an instant red flag that a company is doing something heinous. I don't think anyone has problems with NDAs, but when I see non-disparagement, that instantly translates to "We know we're doing something really shitty, and you'd be right to warn others about us, so we're going to threaten you with our lawyers to keep you from talking about it." See here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/silenced-workers-who-lost-jobs-to-h-1b-visa-abuse-quietly-speak-out/article/2561856 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/silenced-workers-who-lost-...
- scrumper 11y ago
  I want to make sure it's understood that I was recommending OP use the concept of tying a severance payment to signature of a legally binding document that serves the company's interest, not that non-disparagement or NDA were the right tools to use in this instance. Onto your specific point, N-D is not unusual for senior employees with strong contacts in the company's target market (like e.g. sales & project management). They're not necessarily a sign that the company is doing anything shady, but they are a strong tool for preventing disgruntled former employees from saying bad things which might hurt a business. They're pretty aggressive, granted, but they serve a purpose. Most people's umbrage can be satisfied for a price.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >Onto your specific point, N-D is not unusual for senior employees Not unusual for junior employees either. >they are a strong tool for preventing disgruntled former employees from saying bad things which might hurt a business. It prevents you from saying entirely true things which might hurt a business that fully deserved it.
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      Do they typically prevent this? Somethink like libel (or slander I always confuse the 2) often can be defended with proof. So, I wouldnt have a problem with a company not wanted to litigate false claims, but true claims being muzzled is another thing.
      - snark42 11y ago
        A N-D keeps you from saying anything that a court might rule is negative regardless of truth. For instance if I say, "I liked working at Company X but I think the CTO lacked leadership skills/vision" that's disparagement. It subjective/opinion, but assume you have factual reasons you could use to back-up how you formed that opinion.
        davelnewton 11y ago
        IIRC "disparagement" has a legal definition that's roughly "injurious or misleading falsehood". An opinion cannot be false. The legal definition of disparagement is different than general usage. For example, PA law: * The statement is false; * The publisher either intends the publication to cause financial loss or reasonably should recognize the publication would result in financial loss; * Financial loss does in fact result; and * The publisher either knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. There is debate regarding the efficacy of non-disparagement clauses for a variety of reasons, but it's often tough to make them stick.
- helpfulanon 11y ago
  Eh, when they're dangling several months salary in front of you, signing a non-disparagement is a pretty hard thing to pass up. Regardless it's pretty juvenile and self-destructive behavior to go around disparaging an employer for firing you to begin with. Getting a cash bonus for the self-censorship a rational adult should be exhibiting anyhow, is not such a bad thing
  - snark42 11y ago
    If you work in a terrible place but do your best and just don't fit it in you should have a right to say what you didn't like about the places culture, no? It keeps you from posting honest glassdoor reviews (no cons/negatives and zero faith glassdoor wouldn't release your info on discovery), telling friends what it was like to work there, etc.

davelnewton 11y ago

NDA and non-disparagement are radically different things; I have zero issues with NDA, I'd take umbrage at not being able to say a place I used to work at sucks.

xraystyle 11y ago
To me, non-disparagement agreements are an instant red flag that a company is doing something heinous. I don't think anyone has problems with NDAs, but when I see non-disparagement, that instantly translates to "We know we're doing something really shitty, and you'd be right to warn others about us, so we're going to threaten you with our lawyers to keep you from talking about it." See here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/silenced-workers-who-lost-jobs-to-h-1b-visa-abuse-quietly-speak-out/article/2561856 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/silenced-workers-who-lost-...
scrumper 11y ago
I want to make sure it's understood that I was recommending OP use the concept of tying a severance payment to signature of a legally binding document that serves the company's interest, not that non-disparagement or NDA were the right tools to use in this instance. Onto your specific point, N-D is not unusual for senior employees with strong contacts in the company's target market (like e.g. sales & project management). They're not necessarily a sign that the company is doing anything shady, but they are a strong tool for preventing disgruntled former employees from saying bad things which might hurt a business. They're pretty aggressive, granted, but they serve a purpose. Most people's umbrage can be satisfied for a price.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Onto your specific point, N-D is not unusual for senior employees Not unusual for junior employees either. >they are a strong tool for preventing disgruntled former employees from saying bad things which might hurt a business. It prevents you from saying entirely true things which might hurt a business that fully deserved it.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    Do they typically prevent this? Somethink like libel (or slander I always confuse the 2) often can be defended with proof. So, I wouldnt have a problem with a company not wanted to litigate false claims, but true claims being muzzled is another thing.
    - snark42 11y ago
      A N-D keeps you from saying anything that a court might rule is negative regardless of truth. For instance if I say, "I liked working at Company X but I think the CTO lacked leadership skills/vision" that's disparagement. It subjective/opinion, but assume you have factual reasons you could use to back-up how you formed that opinion.
      - davelnewton 11y ago
        IIRC "disparagement" has a legal definition that's roughly "injurious or misleading falsehood". An opinion cannot be false. The legal definition of disparagement is different than general usage. For example, PA law: * The statement is false; * The publisher either intends the publication to cause financial loss or reasonably should recognize the publication would result in financial loss; * Financial loss does in fact result; and * The publisher either knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. There is debate regarding the efficacy of non-disparagement clauses for a variety of reasons, but it's often tough to make them stick.
helpfulanon 11y ago
Eh, when they're dangling several months salary in front of you, signing a non-disparagement is a pretty hard thing to pass up. Regardless it's pretty juvenile and self-destructive behavior to go around disparaging an employer for firing you to begin with. Getting a cash bonus for the self-censorship a rational adult should be exhibiting anyhow, is not such a bad thing
- snark42 11y ago
  If you work in a terrible place but do your best and just don't fit it in you should have a right to say what you didn't like about the places culture, no? It keeps you from posting honest glassdoor reviews (no cons/negatives and zero faith glassdoor wouldn't release your info on discovery), telling friends what it was like to work there, etc.