Assume separation comes with one - care to enlighten?
19 replies (most recent on top)
https://www.engadget.com/amazon-one-of-the-worlds-largest-employers-has-called-the-national-labor-relations-board-unconstitutional-011519013.html
Subpoena all the local bartenders and hairdressers. Find out what they know.
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
"The statement need not be false; the legal definition is 'false or injurious'."
No, that is incorrect. The legal definition is "false AND injurious". It can't be OR because the truth is an absolute defense against slander, libel, and in this case disparagement.
I already provided the Merriam-Webster definition. But here's the FindLaw definition if you don't trust the dictionary of record:
disparagement : the publication of false and injurious statements that are derogatory of another's property, business, or product called also business disparagement commercial disparagement disparagement of property slander of goods trade libel
See:
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/disparagement.html
Again, "false AND injurious".
The statement need not be false; the legal definition is “false or injurious”.
I'm sure HR would like us all to stop commenting. But SAS has not historically been a litigious company -- unless they were injured -- and most comments here are not injurious enough to spark a lawsuit.
“They probably would not sue, unless they could prove that your statement damaged their business. But this is why SAS does not need a non-disparagement agreement.”
They would also have to prove that your statement was false.
From Merriam-Webster:
disparage : to belittle the importance or value of (someone or something) : to speak slightingly about (someone or something)
See:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparage
Hmm. Sounds like it's a matter of opinion to me. Saying "Twitter has gone to sh-t since Musk took over" is disparaging, but Elon can't do anything about it.
Maybe you meant the "legal" definition of disparagement? That's closer to something actionable:
disparagement : the publication of false and injurious statements that are derogatory of another's property, business, or product
See:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/disparagement
Now I'm no lawyer (I don't even play one on the Internet), but this sounds a lot like the definition of libel. And truth is an absolute defense against libel (and disparagement) because true statements are by definition not false.
So the real question is: How many of the "disparaging" comments are true (based in fact), and how many are not? Because saying something like "SAS missed the boat on Open Source" is not disparagement. It may be informed opinion (or even uninformed opinion), but arguably true.
Note the distinction between the common use of the word "disparage" and legal definition of "disparagement". Many of the comments here are disparaging, but I don't think I've read a single comment that I would consider disparagement, no matter how much the vehement, and vehemently down-voted, opposition wants to believe saying something negative about SAS, its executives, or their decisions or actions can get you sued, if it's true.
Based on what a few people who were pushed out have alluded to, it sounds like there is something like a non-disparagement clause. But it's hard to tell because they can't say anything.
Fact: if you say something that disparages a company, they can sue you.
They probably would not sue, unless they could prove that your statement damaged their business. But this is why SAS does not need a non-disparagement agreement.
So the previous post is just a statement of fact. Why did it get so many downvotes?
Such a person would indeed be stupid. SAS does not need a signed agreement to sue someone for disparaging the company.
I'm surprised there isn't one. Although I guess it would just make a person look stupid to go on Linkedin or whatever and put their former employer on blast.
Better Call Saul.
“under a Feb. 23, 2023, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, employers can’t use severance agreements to silence laid-off or furloughed employees.”
https://www.halunenlaw.com/nlrb-says-employers-can-no-longer-use-severance-agreements-to-buy-laid-off-employees-silence
@OP+1r1JmUKt
"Assume separation comes with [a non-disparagement clause]"
That's baseless nonsense. In the past 30+ years I have seen many people leave for a variety of reasons. I have never heard of such a thing--whether the "separation" was voluntary or involuntary.
@one+1r1JmUKt Cool story and obvious. But that isn’t what they asked.
"Non-disparagement"? If you quit you can tell them: "Go fu-k yourself", and there's nothing they can do about it. They don't get to impose terms on your "separation" at that point.
Data point:
The 2021 VRBP did NOT come with any such requirement or request.
I hear Admiral Ackbar calling - It's a trap!