I have serious misgivings about this sort of "hush money". In general, I'd prefer not to interfere in private contracts, but this one has such serious implications for everyone else. In particular, it can end up creating an information imbalance, enforced by the courts, that allows a certain group of people to remain "in the know", with everyone else unaware of what is going on.
I read a while back about a law firm that had evidently done something very dodgy - representing an inventor and the firm purchasing the invention at the same time. The engineers were eventually paid a settlement, but part of the settlement was a gag order - nobody was allowed to talk about what had happened or the amount of money paid. This included, of course, the press.
Now, what do you want to bet that well connected lawyers, upper managers, and so forth, are able to access the terms of this deal - even if they weren't involved? What are the odds that an inventor who approaches a law firm will know what transpired and why? The imbalance of information will put the inventor at an overwhelming disadvantage.
My gut feeling is that there is a third party in all of this - me. Well, me, and all the little people. I understand the need to enforce contracts within reason, but I'm having a tough time seeing my own personal interest, or the general public interest, in enforcing these "stay quiet" contracts.
I'd also point out that this isn't really a situation where we are prying into a private transaction and forcing people to talk. Our courts are actually enforcing the gag rule that keeps most of us in the dark about what is really going on out there. My misgivings about regulating private transactions aren't as strong when all we'd need to do is stop enforcing contracts that are clearly against the public interest [1].
[1] I am still thinking this through. I'm not absolutely sure this is against the public interest, or, even if it is, if we the courts should refuse to enforce the provision. It's how I'm leaning, but I have a sense that there may be more to this. I am generally glad that courts won't enforce certain terms of contracts, such as very long non-compete clauses and the like...
There is a legal doctrine under which courts will refuse to enforce clauses that are against public policy. Some examples include: racially restrictive deed covenants, inheritance bequests contingent on remaining unmarried, and contracts where one party agrees to perform an illegal act.
In this specific case, the non-disparagement clause would probably be construed not to cover things like testifying before a legislative body or communicating with regulators, even if those communications were voluntary rather than subpoenaed.
> In general, I'd prefer not to interfere in private contracts...
One could argue that such cookie-cutter contracts are no longer "private" if they're presented to the employee as the industry's standard operating procedure. I don't know if such an argument would hold legal weight, but there's something wrong with an agreement where it's expected that only one side gets to decide what's being agreed to.
The article works against your point. Ultimately, he didn't take the money. We aren't in danger of living in a world where people can't talk about work. The vast majority of employers wouldn't be able to afford such a clause.
We ARE in danger of living in just such a world. Extremely few employees happen to write for the New York Times and can hope to be paid the amount of a severance (or at least some reasonable portion thereof) for writing an article about severance clauses.
I read a while back about a law firm that had evidently done something very dodgy - representing an inventor and the firm purchasing the invention at the same time. The engineers were eventually paid a settlement, but part of the settlement was a gag order - nobody was allowed to talk about what had happened or the amount of money paid. This included, of course, the press.
Now, what do you want to bet that well connected lawyers, upper managers, and so forth, are able to access the terms of this deal - even if they weren't involved? What are the odds that an inventor who approaches a law firm will know what transpired and why? The imbalance of information will put the inventor at an overwhelming disadvantage.
My gut feeling is that there is a third party in all of this - me. Well, me, and all the little people. I understand the need to enforce contracts within reason, but I'm having a tough time seeing my own personal interest, or the general public interest, in enforcing these "stay quiet" contracts.
I'd also point out that this isn't really a situation where we are prying into a private transaction and forcing people to talk. Our courts are actually enforcing the gag rule that keeps most of us in the dark about what is really going on out there. My misgivings about regulating private transactions aren't as strong when all we'd need to do is stop enforcing contracts that are clearly against the public interest [1].
[1] I am still thinking this through. I'm not absolutely sure this is against the public interest, or, even if it is, if we the courts should refuse to enforce the provision. It's how I'm leaning, but I have a sense that there may be more to this. I am generally glad that courts won't enforce certain terms of contracts, such as very long non-compete clauses and the like...