3 ms·

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 serv

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.

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.