Sdny Confidentiality Agreement

A critical aspect of Justice Gardephe`s decision is that he refused to attach a «blue pencil» to the employment contract, in other words to rewrite the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in order to limit them to a clearer provision. For example, Justice Gardephe could have rewritten the non-vaccination clause so that it only applies to President Trump, but he refused. Noting that the campaign had aggressively attempted to impose its confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, which were not made in good faith, he sought to «suppress speech it deems harmful to its interests.» Thus, Gardephe J. ruled that the two clauses as a whole were unenforceable. In the case, the complainant was hired in 2016 as a telephone bank manager for the campaign and signed, like all other campaign employees, an employment contract that contained very broad obligations of confidentiality and non-denigration. The non-publication prevented them from publicly discussing, among other things, «privacy,» «relationships,» and «political and business affairs» regarding then-candidate Trump, all of his family members, and all their affairs. The non-disparagement clause also prohibited derogatory comments about the Trumps and their affairs. DISCLAIMER: Given the overall quality of this update, the information contained in this update may not apply in all situations and should not be implemented without specific legal advice based on certain situations. This notice tells employers that restrictive agreements in employment contracts should be as clear as possible in order to increase the likelihood that they will be enforced by the courts. It also tells employers that they should be reasonable when trying to impose restrictive agreements, given that the courts will judge whether employers are protecting legitimate interests or acting by force. Appendix: Jessica Denson v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.

In 2017, the complainant filed a complaint against the campaign for discrimination based on sex, which responded by launching an arbitration procedure and claiming that she had breached the confidentiality and non-vaccination clauses. The arbitration proceedings led the complainant to file an appeal with a federal court to declare the employment contract invalid and unenforceable. Judge Gardephe ruled that the confidentiality and non-vaccination clauses were so vague and broad that they could not be enforced under New York law. Justice Gardephe`s judgment focused on the difficulty, if not impossible, for a campaign staff member to know which speech would be covered by the confidentiality and non-disparagement restrictions for two reasons. First, some categories of confidential information were too broad and unclear enough: for example, the «political affairs», «decisions», communications and «strategies» of the campaign were so varied that they covered all issues related to the campaign and «it is therefore impossible for the applicant to know which speech she has renounced». Second, particularly with respect to the non-denigrating clause, it simply had too many people and entities.

Entradas Relacionadas:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Catergorias: Sin categoría

Si te gusto esta entrada, puedes dejar un comentario o subscribirte a nuestro feed y recibir futuras entradas en tu lector de feeds.

Comments are closed.