zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. MeinBl+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-28 23:54:10
The NDA comment actually is an interesting thought. I wonder if that may actually get implemented in the future actually. And basically women would be breaking the NDA by complaining they had to sign an NDA thusly inferring an irrational accusations online that we've seen run rampant in the past decade.

If I was in management, I'd at least consult my HR department about it. Better safe in court.

replies(1): >>whatsh+A4
◧
2. whatsh+A4[view] [source] 2021-03-29 00:25:40
>>MeinBl+(OP)
The problem with this NDA plan is that it cuts all the way to stopping speech about legitimate abuses.
replies(1): >>lr4444+h7
◧◩
3. lr4444+h7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 00:51:44
>>whatsh+A4
IANAL, but an NDA I think is a civil contract. Civil contracts are not valid to sign away your rights or enable otherwise criminal/misdemeanor behavior.
replies(2): >>kelnos+Rc >>Phlarp+zd
◧◩◪
4. kelnos+Rc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 01:49:16
>>lr4444+h7
Right, but giving someone advice based on a sexist view isn't a crime, so someone who signed this NDA and then got sexist advice wouldn't have any legal grounds to break the NDA.
◧◩◪
5. Phlarp+zd[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-29 01:57:43
>>lr4444+h7
IANAL, but I suspect it's still going to cost lawyer amounts of money to defend yourself against the other party saying you broke NDA.

I always assumed that was the point of the document to begin with.

[go to top]