[rstephenson2]

I'm not a lawyer, but don't contracts require consideration for both parties? Usually when employers require an employee to sign something, there is an implicit consideration "and you get to keep your job." But in this case he was already fired. I suppose it may have said "...in exchange for severance, at [employer]'s sole discretion" but it seems a bit fishy to me.

[ahlatimer]

The non-disparagement clause may have been bilateral. The consideration, in that case, is "we won't talk negatively about you if you don't talk negatively about us."

Here's an example of a former reddit employee disparaging the company and the CEO stepping in and giving his side: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...

[js8]

> The non-disparagement clause may have been bilateral. The consideration, in that case, is "we won't talk negatively about you if you don't talk negatively about us."

Cannot offering of such a clause be considered a blackmail?

[danek]

It sounds super shady but it's what this company does. It's basically a payoff: "Don't ruin our recruiting pipeline or tarnish the opinion of any existing employees and we'll make your firing a bit less painful with X months salary, just sign here. Also we will let you know what 'X' is next week, after you've signed".

X ended up being 1 week of salary. Though for other people it was 1 or 2 months. Very shitty.