3 ms·

>> ... conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisp

by alok-g 4mo ago

>> ... conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisparagement), and denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta (binding arbitration). Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well?

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
ben_w 4mo ago
> Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well? They are. Personally, I think the law should require that nondisclosure agreements should be strictly time-bound[0], ban all non-disparagement agreements[1], and replace binding arbitration with non-binding arbitration or mediation[2] that can still be escalated to a court if it breaks down. [0] by how much I am uncertain, but outside of national security considerations I can't think of anything that needs to last longer than a patent would have. [1] Two arguments: (a) basic freedom of speech; (b) I am British by birth. The UK is so famous for being an easy place to sue for libel that the US passed laws making fines from British courts non-enforceable in the US; why then does the US allow private companies to insert the same effect via contract? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States [2] Court cases are really expensive for everyone. Arbitration is much cheaper and this itself can absolutely benefit workers and customers.
- zeroonetwothree 4mo ago
  If non disparagement agreements weren’t allowed wouldn’t employers have less reason to make severance payments? We would expect average severance payment amounts to decrease under this scenario. So it’s not clear that this is the ideal outcome to employees, who might prefer more $.
  - lovich 4mo ago
    I have been required to sign non disparagement agreements to gain employment and given zero severance for all but one job in my career. Non disclosures, non disparagements, and non solicits, are thrown out like candy by companies while severance payouts are rare outside of the largest orgs. Non compete agreements were also so prevalent that that we had subway sandwich makers being bound by them leading to them being bound and as I just learned when trying to find a source for that I discovered that ban has been abandoned by the current admin[1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5528937/ftc-noncompete-ban-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5528937/ftc-noncompete-...
zeroonetwothree 4mo ago
I believe the nondisparagement clause was signed as part of a termination agreement? So that part seems inaccurate at least.

by alok-g 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

ben_w 4mo ago

> Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well? They are. Personally, I think the law should require that nondisclosure agreements should be strictly time-bound[0], ban all non-disparagement agreements[1], and replace binding arbitration with non-binding arbitration or mediation[2] that can still be escalated to a court if it breaks down. [0] by how much I am uncertain, but outside of national security considerations I can't think of anything that needs to last longer than a patent would have. [1] Two arguments: (a) basic freedom of speech; (b) I am British by birth. The UK is so famous for being an easy place to sue for libel that the US passed laws making fines from British courts non-enforceable in the US; why then does the US allow private companies to insert the same effect via contract? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States [2] Court cases are really expensive for everyone. Arbitration is much cheaper and this itself can absolutely benefit workers and customers.

zeroonetwothree 4mo ago
If non disparagement agreements weren’t allowed wouldn’t employers have less reason to make severance payments? We would expect average severance payment amounts to decrease under this scenario. So it’s not clear that this is the ideal outcome to employees, who might prefer more $.
- lovich 4mo ago
  I have been required to sign non disparagement agreements to gain employment and given zero severance for all but one job in my career. Non disclosures, non disparagements, and non solicits, are thrown out like candy by companies while severance payouts are rare outside of the largest orgs. Non compete agreements were also so prevalent that that we had subway sandwich makers being bound by them leading to them being bound and as I just learned when trying to find a source for that I discovered that ban has been abandoned by the current admin[1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5528937/ftc-noncompete-ban-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5528937/ftc-noncompete-...

zeroonetwothree 4mo ago

I believe the nondisparagement clause was signed as part of a termination agreement? So that part seems inaccurate at least.