What Is Non Disparagement Agreement

Posted: December 20, 2020 in Uncategorized

Not like that. Although there has been no state court decision on this point, the Federal Arizona District Court in FreeLife Int`l, Inc. v. Am. Educ. Music Publications Inc., 2009 WL 3241795 (D.Ariz. 2009). FreeLife, an online distributor on the Internet, sued the accused for breach of contract, which he had apparently “accepted” when he pressed the “I Accept” button on the FreeLife site to become a “marketing manager” of the company. This contract included a non-acceptance clause, in which it was stated that there were, however, limits to the non-disappearance clauses. An obvious but important limitation is that the non-disappearance clauses do not cover statements made prior to the adoption of the clause. This may be particularly important if the clause is agreed in a transaction at the end of a long combative dispute in which both parties have probably already made negative statements to each other. Another essential limitation is that purely factual statements have often not been denigrated in the same way. For example, in Ibrahim v Hilton Toronto, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found that a statement that an employee “lost his [human rights] case and did not receive a penny” is a misrepresentation of what happened in the employee`s case, but does not really denigrate the employee.

In general, these agreements use a broad language that encompasses all kinds of denigration, from the IRL-Rants to the wrong mouth, which appears in writing and everything in between. Granovsky offers some examples of language that an employee might see in a non-disparage clause (you`ll find other examples on his blog): One way to get around the problem of speculation and to establish damages is by including a liquidated/agreed provision in damages under the non-disparage clause. Note that employers want to carefully choose the amount of liquidated damages – fixing the amount too high could be considered an unenforceable “penalty”; fixing the amount too low can, in extreme cases, limit discharge below actual damage. Another way to avoid the issue of damages may be to seek an injunction and a certain benefit rather than damages. While there are limits to what is considered a “disappearance,” workers should think carefully about whether or not they accept a non-disappearing rule in a transaction.

Comments are closed.