This is exactly the kind of response with the right amount of flippancy/belligerence that "they aren't/weren't forced to sign" deserves to be met with.
FWIW I agree about not enforcing non disparagement clauses but legally that not the world we live in.
And we are arguing that private contracts like this should not be enforceable.
> we have decided
I have not been consulted on this matter.
E.g. in Switzerland, citizens can propose constitutional changes, challenge parliamentary laws, and some decisions automatically go to vote.
Citizens of California can pass laws directly, amend the constitution, and recall elected officials.
Probably the biggest reason we don’t have more of that is that people in power typically see it as a threat.
That's not how it works at most companies.
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
If non disparagement clauses were illegal then perhaps the severance amounts would be smaller since there’s now much less value to the company.
...and the salaries would be higher, and some people would be make different choices regarding whether they want to accept an offer or not.
They aren't illegal, but, like non-compete clauses, they should be.
She earned it.
A company's reputation when it comes to severance is a part of compensation negotiations and decisions whether to accept the offer to work there.
She got a high level job where such a severance is expected. If it weren't, they'd struggle to find anyone to fill that job.
The severance wasn't contingent on her past. Anyone else holding that job would've gotten a difference.
A male probably would've gotten a larger one, for that matter.
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.
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.
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?
Not an argument. Yes, she can reject the offer. The guy up top is saying that the non-disparagement clause shouldn't be enforced, a claim that you are just dodging.
After all, why should we be okay with government censoring people on behalf of businesses?
Well, some folks[1] here opine that "this is a feature, not a bug".
That's why, apparently.
