zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
"It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it."

I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.

>>Al-Khw+W11
As others have mentioned, its likely many parts of this NDA are non-enforceable

Its quite common for companies to put tons of extremely restrictive terms in an NDA they can't actually legally enforce to scare off potential future ex-employees from creating a problem.

>>DaSHac+vh1
I wouldn't say that is "quite common". If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out, which is not a can of worms most corporations want to open. So it is actually toeing a delicate balance most of the time, not a "let's throw everything we can into this legal agreement and see what sticks".

>>fastba+3F1
> If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out

I’m not sure that this is true. Any employment contract will have a partial invalidity/severability clause which will preserve the contract if individual clauses are unenforceable.

>>tcbawo+xU1
The severability clause is itself on the table for being stricken, and it's much more likely to happen if too many of the wrong parts of the contract would otherwise invoke it.