zlacker

It's time to find a lawyer. I'm not one but there's an intersection with California SB 331, also known as “The Silenced No More Act”. while it is focused more on sexual harrasment, it's not limited to that, and these contracts may run afoul of that.

https://silencednomore.org/the-silenced-no-more-act

>>fragme+(OP)
Definitely an interesting way to expand existing legislation vs having a new piece of legislation altogether.

>>fragme+(OP)
This doesn’t seem to fall inside the scope of that act, according to the link you cited:

>” The Silenced No More Act bans confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements relating to the disclosure of underlying factual information relating to any type of harassment, discrimination or retaliation at work”

>>j45+Q1
In practice, that's how a lot of laws are made. ('Laws' in the sense of rules that are actually enforced, not what's written down.)

>>nickff+r9
Sounds like retaliation to me.

>>bernie+ca
It's not retaliation at work if you're no longer working for them.

>>Fillig+jb
The retaliation would be for the reaction to the board coup, no?

>>fragme+(OP)
No it’s either a violation of the NLRB rule against severance agreements conditioned on non-disparagement or it’s a violation of the common law rule requiring consideration for amendments to service contracts.

>>static+Xi
> NLRB rule against severance agreements conditioned on non-disparagement

Wait that's a thing? Can you give more detail about this/what to look into to learn more?

>>solida+pl
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-th...

It’s a recent ruling.

>>throwu+EA
Tech execs are lobbying to dissolve NLRB now btw

They have a lot of supporters here (workers supporting their rulers interests)