One of the ways to circumvent the problem of speculation and justify damages is to introduce a lump sum/specific provision on compensation, in conjunction with the non-vaccination clause. Note that employers may want to carefully choose the amount of lump sum damages – setting the amount too high could be considered an unenforceable “penalty”. If you set the amount too low, the discharge may, in extreme cases, fall below the actual damage. Another way to avoid the problem of damages may be to seek an injunction and a benefit instead of damages. A non-disparaging clause simply states that you do not say anything negative about the company, its products, services or its managers – in any way of communication. Non-disparagement clauses try to prevent employees from doing anything by telling a friend that the boss is an idiot to post on Twitter a scathing sidelining of the company as a whole, to give interviews to journalists who give a negative image of the company. This is a very worrying case from the point of view of a lawyer. And be aware that this is not a unique case among most public and federal courts in the country. It seems that, wherever you are, the acceptance of a non-denigration clause in a contract, such as for example. B a settlement agreement, can expose you to terrible consequences if you say something that the other party could “denigrate” in some way. Maybe it`s nonsense.
Your words don`t have to be false, defamatory, or even feisty. You can say or write something to anyone – to your friends, family or on social media – and if it can be interpreted as “pejorative”, you risk violating your transaction agreement. You can be sued and depending on what is written in the agreement, you may have to refund the proceeds of the transaction and any damage that the hated party can prove you were caused by the denigration. Even worse, under Arizona law, because the claim arises from a contract, you could be taken to pay the attorneys` fees and expenses of the party who sued you. The court found that a valid contract was entered into when the defendant pressed the “I agree” button on FreeLife`s website and that the standard non-disparagement clause was part of that contract. It was somewhat surprising to find that the clause was not ruthless and did not violate the reasonable expectations of the defendants. The defendant lost on 1. Round. The second round, which attacked the substance and very validity of the non-disparagement clause, was a more likely victory.
But the accused also lost two rounds. At first glance, non-denigrating clauses look strict. “Denigrating” means criticizing or belitting someone or something or presenting them as of little value. Simply put, it means saying, doing, or writing something about someone that could lead a third party to prevail negatively. “If I have to pay her severance pay, I want to make sure she doesn`t insult me or my company badly,” is not an unusual plea from an employer who separates from a difficult employee. .