93

The company is registered in Delaware, US. But I worked for the branch in Europe.

I just got an email that I have to sign a "Termination Certificate" 6 months after quitting.

It states:

I also agree that for twelve (12) months from this date, I will comply with the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions of the At-Will Employment, Confidential Information, Invention Assignment, and Arbitration Agreement.

Also that I have to state where I am going to work, is this normal?

After leaving the Company’s employment, I will be employed by ________ in the position of ________.

Do I have to sign it?

user20925
  • 1,182
  • 8
  • 25
Trest
  • 691
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11

9 Answers9

246

The Employee View

No, you do not.

Companies often want you to sign things at (or, if poorly organized, after) termination (noncompetes, IP agreements, NDAs, promises not to sue them...). These agreements are ubiquitous especially in tech jobs in the US. You are asked to sign them at employment, which you have to do or not get employed. Then you are asked to sign them at termination (or in your case, way after termination), but you don't have to, because in this case they are not offering you anything meaningful to do so.

Usually if they are serious about having you sign it, there will be a severance or other payment associated with the agreement that lets you justify the possible problems from signing by compensating you with real money in hand. This "consideration" (legal term) is also an important part of whether some aspects of contracts like that (especially noncompetes) are enforceable in some jurisdictions (here's a link to the rich set of rules around noncompetes across some of Europe). But if they are not offering anything, and it's after the fact like this, just ignore their attempt to contact you.

It does not matter if “maybe it’s legally unenforceable.” You still don’t sign it because there’s no reason to enter into a legal agreement for no reward. And even if there is a noncompete, it’s sure not your job to tell them where you’re working now. Let them figure it out themselves if they’re trolling to see if they should take action against you. You're not working for them any more, what are they going to do, fire you?

The last place I left, I gave my notice and they said on my last day "oh don't forget to sign your departure paperwork." I said "Sure, let me look it over." As is customary in the US for tech jobs, it had all this stuff in it (IP warnings, noncompete, nonsolicitation, "you're not going to sue us"). But there was no consideration involved (I didn't get anything from signing it), and I am pretty uninterested in working for that place ever again. So I didn't sign it or send it in. They didn't even bother to follow up about it. (It was only restating the existing IP and NDA and noncompete stuff I'd already signed.) If anyone had contacted me about it, I'd politely say "I'm sorry, I don't enter into legal agreements for no consideration. Thanks, have a good day!"

A previous place I left, they gave me $1k to sign a termination agreement, so I signed it, I mean, I didn't plan to steal their IP or sue them and that's a thousand bucks in hand so why not.

The Management View

Full disclosure - I’m a manager who hands this kind of thing out myself to terminated employees as part of my job.

This is usually containing terms they’ve agreed to already, as a reminder and “acknowledging it again” so they can’t claim in court “Oh I don’t know, I just signed some random things when I was hired, I didn’t know I couldn’t take my code and their customer data with me when I left”. Just giving it to them again whether they sign it or not is material legally because they can't claim they weren't told. Sometimes it's also a "you're not gonna sue us, arbitration, etc etc." agreement. Companies do have to protect themselves, and as even some questions on this Stack indicate people feel free to lie, take code, take sensitive information, and so on (and the vast majority obviously don't read the papers they sign or their employee handbooks or whatever). There's no 100% way to prevent it, but that's where legal remedies come in.

Ramifications Of Not Signing

I just had someone sign one last week, but I paid them two weeks severance in the bargain, so they willingly signed. Otherwise, I’d ask them to sign it but have no real recourse if they didn’t. Legally I can’t withhold PTO payout, or any other kind of coverage or thing they're due if they don't sign. I can’t smack talk someone on a reference check for fear of legal problems too.

If I feel strongly about it (especially if they were rude or unprofessional during the interaction) I can not actively help and recommend them and not consider them for re-hire, which is definitely a downside for them unless they are being fired for severe cause, as I try to help out people even if they didn’t work out on my team, and I’m active in my city’s tech community. If you quit or were laid off or were fired from my team on good terms, I will have your back in the future as long as you behave professionally.

If you tell me "I'm not going to sign that without consideration" - I personally sympathize, and I will try to get something for you, which will vary by how much my organization really cares. I wouldn't try "$1!" or whatever, that's a transparent legal dodge not suitable for real professionals. But it'll probably be modest, like my examples of $1k or a couple weeks pay, if you're not an executive or something. In reality this entire exchange is usually just a polite formality and a small sweetener so you're not just "signing because you loved me as a boss." If you try to negotiate it up from there ("two years!!!") I'll decline, and also consider you to have poor judgement as a professional (see above paragraph about not recommending you to others). I may also keep an eye on you more in the future to see if you do seem to be violating your employment agreement.

Ramifications Of Actually Doing The Bad Things The Document Is Talking About

Keep in mind most places aren't trying to arbitrarily screw you, they're trying to preserve their legitimate business interest. If you're working for a company working specifically on thing X, and you go to another one working on nearly identical thing X, you are very likely to be leaking specific information about product internals or customer relationships or whatever your deal is. That's why IP agreements and NDAs and noncompetes exist. And whether you signed one going out the door or not, you probably signed one coming in.

I would only take action if I felt there was a compelling business threat. But if you leave my, say, startup doing educational scheduling and go to our competitor who's the one other startup doing educational scheduling, and they get the benefit of our confidential internal tech and relationships and whatnot, I will drown you in lawyers. And to be blunt, even if if the contract is eventually held to not be enforceable, you're the one who's going to be spending a lot of your personal money on lawyers you'll never get back. So don't do it.

mxyzplk
  • 35,863
  • 15
  • 105
  • 134
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Neo Feb 06 '20 at 17:35
  • 16
    In parts of Europe, eg where I live and I suspect many other places, any clause in contract that places limits on your future employment after your contract ends, is null and void, unless the contract specifies what you get as compensation for that. This answer seems more US centric and not necessarily fully useful for a job in EU. – Gnudiff Feb 06 '20 at 19:24
  • 3
    @Gnudiff I don't think raising the "null and void" is sufficient because if you do somehow leak trade secrets or IP, the lawyers will still come knocking. The limitation is only on future employment, but how exactly do you do X for company Y and not get hit with massive lawsuits from former company X is still a bit far fetched... I mean, if you worked for Microsoft, then either started your own company or worked for "Macrosoft", and then released Windoze 10, you're going down. – Nelson Feb 06 '20 at 20:01
  • 4
    @Nelson yes, you can be expected to go down if it is proved you copied Microsoft's code, or did something similar. But (as indicated in answers below) if you are specifically prohibited by your current contract to be employed by a competitor, you have to have some compensation for that, or the clause is not enforceable. It is related to worker's rights in Europe, which are quite strong, and tbh it makes sense. If you have deep domain knowledge it is expected that it will be your primary source of income. If you are deprived of it, you'd better get adequate compensation. – Gnudiff Feb 06 '20 at 21:19
  • 2
    @Nelson it doesn't mean that the compensation can't be assumed to be part of your actual salary while employed, but only, if it is explicitly stated so in the contract. Eg. Your salary is €xxx per month and you have a bonus €yyy per month as compensation for not working for competition for 2 years after your current contract ends. It is presumed that you save €yyy against the rainy day, but it is then really up to you. – Gnudiff Feb 06 '20 at 21:21
  • 1
    Good answer, but feel compelled to add - "If I feel strongly about it [...] I can not actively help and recommend them and not consider them for re-hire" - don't forget this works both ways. If they feel you're being unreasonable by asking them to sign something they don't want to sign, or don't feel you're offering them enough, they can leave bad reviews, recommend against applying to your company to any contacts they have, and generally regard you as unprofessional. – berry120 Feb 07 '20 at 00:00
  • @berry120 you can add that, but these documents (at hire and at termination) are universal in tech jobs in the states, so complaining about them on glassdoor just means you come across as a crank. You can like it or not like it, but they're the norm. – mxyzplk Feb 07 '20 at 01:27
  • 2
    @Gnudiff "any clause in contract that places limits on your future employment after your contract ends, is null and void". I find that hard to believe, NDA clauses are very common and almost required to protect businesses from antagonized ex-employees. Things like "For x months after termination of employment you are not allowed to enter any professional relationship with a customer of this company" or "For x months after termination of employment you are not allowed to work at competitors of this company" are even detailed in some contract templates, used for entire sectors. – Kevin Feb 07 '20 at 06:28
  • @Gnudiff The way this usually goes down is the case is brought up to a judge, who determines if the situation is appropriate to hold the employee to the NDA. If there are 3 competing companies in a certain domain and no others and I work at one of them, chances are the judge is going to let me work at one of the others if the knowledge is very specific. But if there are 2384 companies in that domain and only 2 are noteworthy competitors of my previous company, there's a much bigger chance the judge would forbid me from starting at one of those 2. – Kevin Feb 07 '20 at 06:31
  • 1
    @Kevin well I can't speak for the whole EU, but in my country clauses about future restrictions on employment are only enforceable, if separate compensation for that is provided in contract. From other answers it looks like it is the case in other EU countries as well. I am not speaking about general NDA only about right to work. – Gnudiff Feb 07 '20 at 07:51
  • @mxyzplk-SEstopbeingevil That's fair enough, I'm from the UK so my perspective is different. – berry120 Feb 07 '20 at 09:30
  • 1
    @Gnudiff In Germany, it has to be "reasonable compensation". If I'm offered a €100,000 job that my ex-employer doesn't want me to take, and a €50,000 job that my ex-employer is Ok with, then "reasonable compensation" is at least €50,000 per year. – gnasher729 Feb 10 '20 at 21:17
  • 3
    The final paragraph of this answer is why "loser pays" legislation really ought to be implemented and enforced in the US. – Ertai87 Jan 12 '23 at 17:30
  • 2
    $1k is an insultingly low amount (compensation for things like this usually starts at 3 month's salary), and negotiating about an offer is not at all "poor judgement as a professional". – BrtH Jan 12 '23 at 20:51
  • I don’t know what country and industry you are in, but actual months of pay for noncompete/ip agreements/noncompetes is not customary in most of them. Everything but the noncompete and agreement not to sue/contest your dismissal are the only things even arguably worth consideration. – mxyzplk Jan 13 '23 at 00:00
72

You no longer work there, so they can't make you do anything you weren't already contractually obligated to do. As pointed out in the comments, you can't be contractually obligated to sign another contract, so you're under no obligation to sign the new non-compete clause. You're also not obligated to inform them where you're working now (unless you have a prior contractual obligation to do so).

I'd actually be really cautious about signing this. The new agreement clearly states that it applies for 12 months from when you sign it, not 12 months from when you quit, so your non-compete clause will effectively hold for a year and a half in total.

That may actually be why they waited six months. Check what your original non-compete clause says - they might be trying to trick you into extending it. It wouldn't surprise me if the original one only holds for six months from when you quit.

Whether intentional or not, though, the fact that the non-compete clause holds for 12 months from the date of signing means that there's a good chance that you'd be extending the duration of original non-compete clause.

EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine
  • 6,362
  • 1
  • 21
  • 51
  • 2
    @Eli No. This one sounds like it's meant to be an acknowledgement/reminder, which is why I suggested that you fix the date before signing it. I don't think they are trying to trick you--it's probably just usual stupid slow business. – Mars Feb 05 '20 at 06:52
  • 80
    @Eli why sign it at all? What are they giving you in return? – user1666620 Feb 05 '20 at 10:24
  • 26
    @Eli No. Don't sign anything. Don't ask them to change anything. Mars, this isn't "just a reminder". They are asking you to sign something. – DJClayworth Feb 05 '20 at 16:32
  • 1
    @Eli Ask them what's wrong with the original non-compete clause. – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 05 '20 at 16:35
  • 5
    @Mars If it's just a reminder, why not just give the OP a reminder? Why make the OP sign anything at all? – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 05 '20 at 17:02
  • 16
    There's no such thing as a contractual obligation to sign another contract. That inherently contradicts what contract law is. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Feb 05 '20 at 22:48
  • @Harper-ReinstateMonica Yeah, I'm not a lawyer. In either case, the OP doesn't work for them, so they can't make him do anything anymore. – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 05 '20 at 22:57
  • @EJoshuaS-ReinstateMonica and DJClayworth: True, signing the part about the non-compete sounds redundant. There may have been a clause about reporting where you work afterwards, or receiving approval for your next company. Reporting where you now work and signing for that doesn't sound strange at all, but I'm not in the EU – Mars Feb 06 '20 at 03:33
  • They key is no longer working there. Most of the contractual obligations die when the relationship is terminated. Better talk with a lawyer. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 06 '20 at 14:02
  • @RuiFRibeiro Most of them. It's actually really common to have at least some contractual obligations afterwards (like a non-disclosure agreement for company secrets, possibly a non-compete clause), but those are things you typically sign during onboarding, not something that they "make" you sign six months after the fact. They literally have no way of forcing the OP to do anything that they weren't already contractually obligated to do anymore. What are they going to do - fire the OP six months after the fact? – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 06 '20 at 14:12
40

You don’t have to sign anything. Since there is no upside to you for signing, and possible downsides, I very, very strongly recommend that you don’t sign anything.

If the letter said something like “in return for receiving £10,000 severance pay etc.” then you would think about it.

And that is all.

gnasher729
  • 169,032
  • 78
  • 316
  • 508
  • I agree - they probably have to offer the OP at least something of value in order for it to be a legally binding contract anyway. My understanding is that courts generally won't enforce contracts where there was no consideration exchanged. – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 10 '20 at 16:14
  • @EJoshuaS-ReinstateMonica I think that is a US thing. In Germany, for example, a contract without any consideration would be perfectly fine and legally binding. And I think you should never sign a contract with the view that a court will not enforce it. – gnasher729 Feb 10 '20 at 21:21
19

First off, delete that crap right out of your email box, possibly marking it as spam, so next time they try to send you something you'll have plausible deniability... you really did not see their crap email in your inbox.

Second (and with the proviso that I am not a lawyer and can't make such promises): Europe isn't anything like the US in terms of labor laws and employer-employee relationships, in general. (Thank God!). Most European courts will throw any contract clause like the clauses you've described into the trash upon seeing it. What this clause is implying is that, with absolutely no remuneration from the previous employer, to compensate their demands, they want to bar you the ability to earn a living in an entire sector of the market, more so, the sector you're now most experienced in!

Doesn't make sense, right? Not only are you no longer their employee, but to stop you from using your expertise to make a livelihood?! Well, as I said, no promises, but you're probably safe just ignoring them altogether.

That kind of (non-legal) BS should happen on "bye day", a week later at most.
If their HR is disorganized, that's not your problem!

Brondahl
  • 1,746
  • 1
  • 11
  • 15
  • 16
    Actually, that's an interesting point... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that U.S. Courts would enforce a contract like this either because no consideration was provided. – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Feb 05 '20 at 05:49
  • 1
    Couldn't say about US courts, but in my native country (nevermind which), courts have a good laugh at the expense of companies still trying to even include such a clause, let alone act upon it, before they toss such lawsuits out... unless, of course, remuneration has been stipulated, that, guess what, not one employer trying to enforce that clause ever bothered with providing. And just to be crystal clear, I don't find my native country's law system to be progressive or enlightened by any means! –  Feb 05 '20 at 06:15
  • 3
    IANAL, but in France (I couldn't say if it is French law, or EU law though), if a company wishes to enforce a non-compete, they have to offer meaningful compensation (at the appreciation of a judge), for the duration of the non-compete. The only penalty a former employer can impose is simply, not paying the compensation. Moreover, the non-compete must be limited in time, the point being that you can't force your employee to not work, but simply prevent him the knowledge of up-to-date business intelligence. – FrenchFigaro Feb 05 '20 at 08:35
  • Would you sign such paper on your bye day? – BЈовић Feb 05 '20 at 12:31
  • 1
    @BЈовић possibly for meaningful consideration. otherwise no. – emory Feb 05 '20 at 12:37
  • @BЈовић, no eff-ing way, hence the (non-legal) BS part of my response. –  Feb 05 '20 at 12:48
  • 10
    You don't need to trash one culture in favor of your own in order to make your point. – Old_Lamplighter Feb 05 '20 at 15:38
  • 5
    Don’t sign it, but don’t pretend you never saw it. If they’re ever foolish enough to take this nonsense to court, why give them even the tiniest chance of them saying you lied about it? Their position is poor; no benefit to you in making it better. – WGroleau Feb 05 '20 at 16:02
  • 19
    -1 The first paragraph is nonsense, there's no reason for it, and I don't think it'd actually help you in any kind of legal situation. Also, no one cares if you think the EU labors laws are better than the US. – Andy Feb 05 '20 at 16:18
  • 3
    "Plausible deniability" only works if there is absolutely no way for you to know about something. Getting this email shows that you know. Marking something as spam generally goes to a spam folder, not that it gets deleted immediately, so it's still in your mailbox to be read. The bad advice in your first paragraph makes the rest sound equally not reliable info. – computercarguy Feb 05 '20 at 19:18
  • 1
    @Andy likely because they are, for employees. Worse for companies. – Stian Feb 06 '20 at 10:46
  • 1
    @computercarguy Forget plausible deniability. He does not work for them anymore, he owns them nothing, email is not a reliable protocol and furthermore, nobody is obliged to answer an email. The best option of all is ignoring the message. From my POV, they are pestering the guy, and are just trying to see if they get away with it signing something that they forgot or should not be signed at all. – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 06 '20 at 14:05
  • 1
    @RuiFRibeiro, I totally agree with you. I think the OP should totally forget plausible deniability, since it doesn't apply. And yes to ignoring the message, and yes, the company is pestering the OP for no good reason. – computercarguy Feb 06 '20 at 16:55
  • @StianYttervik Debating which laws are better or worse though is beyond the scope of this question, and thus irrelevent. – Andy Feb 06 '20 at 18:18
  • 2
    @andy better or worse, yeah, I agree - but the fact that in general, labor laws are more employee friendly might be relevant, for future readers of the question and answer. There are many us specific questions and answers that could lead one into presuming it is the same everywhere, which it isn't. The US has a particularly stringent set of laws among "western" countries, but is AFAIK over represented on SE. Though I agree it could have been worded... Better. – Stian Feb 06 '20 at 19:35
  • @EJoshuaS-ReinstateMonica, What US court? The agreement says he agrees to arbitration. Arbitration in the US is awful. They're not required to follow any laws. They're biased towards the company that initially chose them. They can just decide things on a whim. And generally, you can do very little about it. – Stephan Branczyk Feb 07 '20 at 20:13
9

Tell them that you'll sign it for three times (3x) your previous annual compensation, in a lump-sum payment.

EDIT: Based on Dmitry's comment, 3x is bit of a slap in the face (but imnsho, the request to sign is a slap in your face). Anyway, you could ask to be compensated for the time that you are under contract. For example, if the non-compete is for 12 months, respectfully ask for 12 months salary, six, or even three. It depends on the relationship with this employer.

Regardless of the amount, politely requesting compensation is a professional way of asserting yourself.

Typically an employee gets some form of severance payment for signing this stuff. Two weeks pay for every year at the company, possibly plus bonus.

kmiklas
  • 667
  • 4
  • 6
  • 2
    Although you could have a point, this does not answer the questions asked. Mind editing your answer to better help OP? – DarkCygnus Feb 05 '20 at 21:58
  • 3
    It does answer the question; and is arguably the best answer. Put pressure back onto them... they want his signature, they pay. – kmiklas Feb 06 '20 at 01:23
  • 1
    I actually think this is what OP should do. I personally would not even bother replying to them but since he or she seems to want to sign it, he/she should ask for a compensation as it is suggested by kmiklas. – Gainz Feb 06 '20 at 14:52
  • 1
    This is poor advice. If you claim an unreasonable amount of money from your boss, and later need them as a reference, you may not get one. And yes, asking 3x the money you would get while working for not working is unreasonable. – Dmitry Grigoryev Feb 07 '20 at 08:53
  • This agreement directly affects the OP's ability to work. Perhaps 3x is too much, but there needs to be some compensation. I think that the reference will be largely unaffected; if they're asking for his signature on something like this, their reference will be little more than a canned response: yes/no on employment status, and possibly dates of employment. – kmiklas Feb 07 '20 at 19:42
5

From the verbal construction, it seems someone forgot to give/send that form to you before you left their service. As others say, it is no longer your problem. Furthermore, as a rule, never ever sign with corporate backdated documents. Or documents without a date (they will probably just add one later on).

Even if you signed an NDA, and especially if you did not sign one, I would simply ignore the email. The relationship is over, and this email may be tantamount of them harassing you. Whatever real or imaginary power they though they had over you is over. And remember, HR is not your friend.

Corporate tries this bullshit all the time. Once in a project, someone forgot to ask me rights to some part of the project (which they did not had, and most importantly did not pay for, it was my intellectual property to begin with), and a few months down the line (a year maybe?) a lawyer just sent me an email...please send us xxxx. In my last job, they also asked me for an exit interview, camouflaged as came here sign your yearly job evaluation documents after I left. Though luck. ;-P

I just ignored the email on both cases, and never heard anything more about them. They just try if the fish takes the bait. Do not fall for it, you have absolutely nothing to gain from answering those kind of messages.

Rui F Ribeiro
  • 4,967
  • 22
  • 30
4

There are lots of good answers here,

I will just add a little bit of my mind

Any contract have to have a consideration for both sides to be legally binding document.

If you sign these contracts and they are not outline any benefit for you - legally they are contestable and may not be binding. You may want to consult a lawyer about that.

As for suggestion: If you are ok with signing the contracts, it becomes a bargaining issue for what your former employer is willing to give you for signing them and what would you accept for it

Strader
  • 13,415
  • 1
  • 26
  • 59
3

I think the other answers are getting pretty out of hand, so I'm going to avoid assuming that your previous employer was evil.

Why did it take 6 months?

Probably the usual, slow, stupid business bureaucracy, worsened by the fact that you're in Europe. I've had companies take a couple months to get my paperwork done, and that was in the same country.

It's also possible that they delayed so that you would have a reasonable chance at finding a job before they sent the letter. (Just a possibility, I'd still bet on a slow HR department!)

Do I have to sign it?

Not really. I think this is mostly just meant to be a reminder that you (as you stated in the comments) already have signed a non-compete clause. They are checking to see that you are protecting that agreement.

If you don't sign it, they will possibly try to find out your current employment through other means. It will be a pain in the butt for them.

You can save them the time if you have a good relationship with them.
Just do one of the following:

  • Fix the date (they probably, innocently messed it up/were late) and sign it.
  • Have them fix the date for you, like you said you will do in your comment!
  • Email them with something like "I already signed a non-compete contract. For your peace of mind, I'm currently working at..." (Credit: @Andrew Leach's comment)

You lose nothing, while maintaining a professional appearance.

Mars
  • 6,050
  • 2
  • 16
  • 36
  • 1
    @Eli That sounds like the most reasonable course of action. Good luck :) – Mars Feb 05 '20 at 07:01
  • 2
    From the wording, this is also my impression: OP have already signed the non-compete clause, this is just a reminder. Whether or not it is enforceable is the real question, considering the jurisdictions are so different. Even in US they disagree if an at-will employment is consideration enough for a non-compete clause. – lvella Feb 05 '20 at 15:14
  • 3
    @Ivella In the US at-will employment can be consideration enough for a non-compete clause, but they are not offering OP at-will employment. OP's previous at-will employment is already done. They can not take that back. They are literally offering OP nothing. Something for nothing does not sound like a good deal to me. I recommend OP not sign. – emory Feb 06 '20 at 13:35
  • Is there a need to assume anything with that email content? – Rui F Ribeiro Feb 06 '20 at 14:10
  • @emory I guess it's a situational problem. Either it's a pointless, unenforceable contract--a waste of everyone's time that just coincidentally has the same 12month non-compete conditions that OP initially had, OR it's an issue of a slow HR department that didn't notice the implied date on the termination paperwork. I'll let you decide which seems more likely. – Mars Feb 07 '20 at 02:16
  • For what it's worth, I've had former companies take 6ish months to send me some of the paperwork as well – Mars Feb 07 '20 at 02:16
  • @RuiFRibeiro What do you mean? – Mars Feb 07 '20 at 02:17
  • @Mars there is a 3rd possibility. if OP thinks it is enforceable, it is almost as good as an enforceable contract - definitely not a waste of OP's former employer's time. – emory Feb 07 '20 at 14:33
  • @Mars, No, if you tell them the name of your new employer, you're potentially creating legal problems for your new employer. Don't tell them anything. Don't even reply to them. Besides, his former hiring manager didn't send this, another person in HR or legal did. He's not burning any bridges by ignoring the message. That being said, I wouldn't mark the message as spam. If they send him stuff about his retirement account or taxes or a job reference or something else, he probably doesn't want such message to go in his spam folder. – Stephan Branczyk Feb 07 '20 at 20:31
  • @emory True, but by having the date changed to be the same timeframe as their current contract, there is absolutely no difference and is a waste of OP's former employer's time. I never suggested to sign with this new date in place. In that regard, you would be totally correct in that OP has nothing to gain – Mars Feb 08 '20 at 12:10
  • @StephanBranczyk You're making a lot of assumptions about the size of OP's company and the way information spreads there. I don't think we can say if there will or won't be burnt bridges. Also, why would there be a legal problem for OP's current company? If OP is in violation of their current non-compete contract, then there is already a problem. – Mars Feb 08 '20 at 12:13
  • @StephanBranczyk You're also ignoring the possibility that OP was supposed to (ie, written in the original contract) report/get approval of the next company/position. Dunno the legalities of such clauses, but that's a slightly separate question. – Mars Feb 08 '20 at 12:14
  • @Mars, "You're also ignoring the possibility that OP was supposed to (ie, written in the original contract) report/get approval of the next company/position." Ah! I've never heard of such a thing. Have you? Or did you just make that up? – Stephan Branczyk Feb 08 '20 at 17:01
  • @Mars, And you're correct. I did make many assumptions in my earlier comment. But I do think that you and I disagree about handling problems like these. See a previous post of mine on a similar issue: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4172/2852 And I stand by my original statement that he should say nothing, he should just ignore that email. It's an email anyway. It's not a certified letter that he had to sign for. – Stephan Branczyk Feb 08 '20 at 17:09
  • @Mars "Also, why would there be a legal problem for OP's current company? If OP is in violation of their current non-compete contract, then there is already a problem." maybe OP is in violation and OP's former company does not have evidence of the violation in which case there is no problem until OP responds to the email and gives them the evidence they need to cause OP trouble. – emory Feb 08 '20 at 21:25
  • @StephanBranczyk I'm not in the US or EU, but I have a subclause in my non-compete clause that requires reporting my company and position, so no, not just making it up. You're completely free to disagree on how to handle this kind of thing though! – Mars Feb 09 '20 at 23:07
  • @emory From the answer: "If you don't sign it, they will possibly try to find out your current employment through other means. It will be a pain in the butt for them.

    You can save them the time if you have a good relationship with them."

     – Mars Feb 09 '20 at 23:08
  • @Mars, Ok, I was wrong. If you're correct, he should check the original contract he signed when first starting his work. In the meantime, he should avoid responding to that email message. – Stephan Branczyk Feb 09 '20 at 23:14
  • @StephanBranczyk Fair enough. But I see nothing to gain and nothing to lose for OP. If it doesn't matter at all for OP, why cause more work for someone else? I guess ignoring it once isn't a bad idea either, but if it comes twice, then it's clear you're causing extra work for some HR person – Mars Feb 10 '20 at 03:43
-2

Before rejecting it, make sure that none of your essential termination benefits are contingent upon the agreement. If they are...

I took an "incentivised" exit which included considerable severance pay, some health benefits for a year, and an outplacement service, but to get those incentives I had to agree not to be part of any class-action suit against the company and to agree to binding arbitration rather than bringing suit myself if I had any issues. (Note that I did not give up the ability to provide evidence for a class action, only that I would neither help fund it nor received any reward if it succeeded.)

For me that was a reasonable agreement; they were giving me enough to pay for accepting those specific terms. For someone else it might not be, for either financial reasons or on principle.

This is a contract. Make darned sure you understand it in detail, then decide whether to agree. If you have any doubt, run it past a lawyer.

keshlam
  • 66,609
  • 15
  • 121
  • 227