This means that I could not work as an Internet services analyst and be critical of Yahoo!'s services in comparison with MSN or Google for the rest of my life. The agreement isn't reciprocal. If there was a subpoena, however, I could respond to specific questions.
While I immediately, as per their instructions, inquired about my future ability to analyze search marketing services and they assured me I would receive a response to my questions, I never did until after the first deadline when I reminded them that their response hadn't come soon enough. The best they could do was allow me to speak freely as required by my employer (but not supervisor in the case of a non-paid work or educational treatise).
They also couldn't help me get around another part of the separation agreement where I would have to swear that I have "not suffered any discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or wrongful treatment by any released party." Unfortunately, as of 2 February 2008, I had filed another complaint to Human Resources about wrongful treatment.
I had asked for arbitration as Yahoo! was unwilling to follow my doctor's instructions, leading to re-injury and even when informed I was in pain, I wasn't allowed to return to work that I could do—the work that my doctor had cleared me to work full-time at in October 31, 2007.
Yahoo! was funny like that.
Yahoo!, like other companies and private individuals, is protected from libel, slander and defamation of character. You can't yell fire in a crowded public place as per Schenck v. United States — a case that actually was about the distribution of anti-draft fliers during World War I. Yahoo! is protected by regular contract agreements from having employees steal ideas they came up with while under contract and working at Yahoo! on Yahoo! projects.
Yahoo! is also a news portal and one would think supportive of journalists—unless they are in China being investigated by the Chinese government.
Dan Fost wrote in the San Francisco Post that non-disparagement agreements were surprisingly effective, but also problematic for reporters—and somewhat questionable when it was media outlets requiring non-disparagement clauses signed for severance.
He reported:
The issue first reared its ugly head in February when Amazon.com — not even a media company — tried to make the clause part of a severance package for 1,300 laid-off workers. Workers who refused to sign it would get only two weeks' severance, compared with the more generous 12-week packages awarded to those willing to keep their mouths shut. But in the resulting hue and cry, Amazon backed down.
Non-disparagement clauses kept workers from Inside.com, BabyCenter.com, Healtheon/WebMD, Health magazine, and Cnet Networks, according to Fost.
Article comments