• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

***OPINION POLL*** What do you think is LEGAL?

N

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
As a requirement for employment with Company, Employee is required to sign an NDA or confidentiality agreement. NDA includes stipulation that Employee is bound to NDA for entire length of employment plus one year immediately following termination of employment regardless of reason for the end of the employment. Employee signs and receives gainful employment from Company.

An irrelevant amount of time passes at which time Employee becomes unemployed with Company.

At some point during that first year directly following the end of employment, the now-Ex-Employee gets a letter from now-Previous-Company that includes a reminder that now-Ex-Employee signed the NDA, a portion or part of the original NDA quoted that does not in any way say that it is the entire NDA in whole (nor does it say it is just an exerpt), and a reminder that now-Ex-Employee is not required in any way to answer anyone's questions about Company's business without a subpoena. The letter continues in saying that if now-Ex-Employee has been contacted with a request for such information as would violate the NDA if disclosed, "it would be much appreciated if (now-Ex-Employee) give (Company's) human resources department or me a heads up."

The letter is "signed" with "Mailed without signature to avoid delay, (name), Corporate Counsel."

I have been having an argument with someone regarding the actual NDA and what now-Ex-Employee is legally bound to after receiving such a letter.

Here is the question.

With the letter having not including the entire contents of the NDA (but including just a portion of it), would said letter overwrite, replace, or negate the original NDA?
 
I would thing it wouldn't overwrite the original, Because you signed the original.

#2.. Either your old boss is paranoid or someones up to something, I'd figure..
 
Originally posted by: MCrusty
I would think that the original document is still in place.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

the new stuff is just a reminder and they are phishing for info about something that is going on. probably some big legal crap going on and the legal dept. is trying to get some info
 
Originally posted by: cjgallen
You signed the original, I'd say that one is the one you should abide by.
Click to expand...

Assume that now-Ex-Employee will abide by it anyway because they haven't signed a new one. The question was more along the lines of what would stand up in court as the entire and legally binding NDA, the would-be recently-received letter or the original contract?
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: cjgallen
You signed the original, I'd say that one is the one you should abide by.
Click to expand...

Assume that now-Ex-Employee will abide by it anyway because they haven't signed a new one. The question was more along the lines of what would stand up in court as the entire and legally binding NDA, the would-be recently-received letter or the original contract?
Click to expand...

The letter can not be legally binding, as it's only signed by one party. 😕
 
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: cjgallen
You signed the original, I'd say that one is the one you should abide by.
Click to expand...

Assume that now-Ex-Employee will abide by it anyway because they haven't signed a new one. The question was more along the lines of what would stand up in court as the entire and legally binding NDA, the would-be recently-received letter or the original contract?
Click to expand...

The letter can not be legally binding, as it's only signed by one party. 😕
Click to expand...

There's no signature on it. Part of the OP:

The letter is "signed" with "Mailed without signature to avoid delay, (name), Corporate Counsel."
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: cjgallen
You signed the original, I'd say that one is the one you should abide by.
Click to expand...

Assume that now-Ex-Employee will abide by it anyway because they haven't signed a new one. The question was more along the lines of what would stand up in court as the entire and legally binding NDA, the would-be recently-received letter or the original contract?
Click to expand...

The letter can not be legally binding, as it's only signed by one party. 😕
Click to expand...

There's no signature on it. Part of the OP:

The letter is "signed" with "Mailed without signature to avoid delay, (name), Corporate Counsel."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My point is that the ex-employee did not agree to any conditions other than those in the original contract. Without agreement on both sides, any other conditions are not legally binding on the ex-employee.

EDIT: Unless the company provides written notice that they release the employee from any/all conditions agreed to in the original NDA.

 
Do employers have the ability legally to change NDA contents without notifying the employee of changes or requiring them to re-sign the new one to continue employment?
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Do employers have the ability legally to change NDA contents without notifying the employee of changes or requiring them to re-sign the new one to continue employment?
Click to expand...

No. Although they'll try to make you think they can.

 
Two questions.

1. What state is this?

2. What were the circumstances of the termination of employment? Quit or fired. If the latter, was it for a documented cause? Yes, it matters.
 
Originally posted by: AaronB
Two questions.

1. What state is this?

2. What were the circumstances of the termination of employment? Quit or fired. If the latter, was it for a documented cause? Yes, it matters.
Click to expand...


Why would the second question matter?
 
perhaps I should just heap abuse upon you for posting legal questions in a "computer forum", like you do to so many others.
 
Originally posted by: Yossarian
perhaps I should just heap abuse upon you for posting legal questions in a "computer forum", like you do to so many others.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion poll, asshat. I'll be calling my lawyer in the morning to ask to see who wins the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top