Dealing w/ Draconian Severance Contracts?

outOfWork asks: "I've just been recently announced that I was getting laid off from yet another dot-bomb company. I have received my papers and they are simply dragonian! I understand the need not to disclose any information on the company I was with (that's only natural; I have also signed a similar paper when I started working there anyways), however the papers they are requesting me to sign do include such terms as not being to sue (should I require to). I thought suing someone or a company was a fundamental freedom that we enjoyed here in Canada. If I do not sign these papers, they do mention that I will not be entitled to my severence's package. I'm fairly certain that several companies do these sorts of things, however do they have the right to do this? This company has had a bad reputation when it comes to how HR deals with certain issues and I'm wondering if they might be trying to pull a fast one on us. With the market being what it is, I could sure use that severence's package. Your input would be very welcome."

Comments

be pragmatic

[topham]

Be pragmatic.

I don't support crap like this, but ask yourself a few questions first. Do you believe you have a need or cause to sue the company? Laying you off isn't generally a cause.

Is the severance package more than is required by law? check your provincial, or federal labour code (certain companies, Banks for instance, have to meet only federal labour code.)

If the severence package is more than you would normally be entitled to when layed off, and does NOT include any further requirements as to confidentiality, non-compete etc more than your initial contract then you may as well sign it.

On the other hand, if the non-compete/confidential information clauses are more significant than what you signed when you got your employement you probably should NOT sign such an agreement.

I am not a Canadian lawyer,

[io333]

however,

It seems to me that if you are *not* already entitled to such a severance package, that they are, in essence,

making you a settlement offer

which you may or may not choose to accept.

However,

if you were already entitled to the package, and they suddently would not give it to you without this additional condition,

then you could possibly, at a future date, argue during the suit that you were forced to agree to the additional condition while under some sort of duress,

in which case the document may be held to be invalid. But this is risky.

Maybe instead of the collective *cough* wisdom of Slashdot, might I suggest that

you see a real lawyer instead?

it'll also be fraud

[Trepidity]

When you accept the money you fraudulently signed for.