4 ms·
> They also included gag orders and giving up legal rights. This indicates that the author is writing in bad faith. There’s no company in America with even vag
by User23 3y ago
> They also included gag orders and giving up legal rights.
This indicates that the author is writing in bad faith. There’s no company in America with even vaguely competent lawyers that isn’t going to condition any severance payment on a general release. That’s literally the consideration the employee is providing. You’re certainly free to decline the deal and sue or arbitrate, but in the absence of punitive damage it’s not going to be more than about three months.
- jiveturkey 3y agoAs of Feb 1 2023, there is. https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-th... Of course this event occured before then, so yes, it was de riguer. (even if retroactively invalid)
- User23 3y agoInteresting. But isn't that law about union stuff? Does it somehow apply if a union isn't involved? It seems reasonable to me that a company asks for an agreement to not sue for wrongful termination if it offers a buyout. If you accept the buyout it's basically an out of court settlement. And any settlement includes an agreement to not pursue further legal action, otherwise by definition it's not a settlement. If you don't accept the buyout then as I said you're free to sue or arbitrate. So where is the problem?
- jiveturkey 3y agoDon't quote me, but it's a regulation not a law. It's indifferent to union status. I agree, it seems fair to ask for non-disparagement etc in exchange for severance. If you don't want the restrictions, you needn't accept the money. But here we are.