Announcing that sex harassment victims are not constrained by the non-disparagement agreements (NDA) they sign as a condition of employment, NBCUniversal garners praise for defending abused employees. But the parent company of NBC News implies that its NDA never muzzled them in the first place. Is this just virtue signalling that offers justice for none? Will Fox News follow suit, and also release women — like Gretchen Carlson — who agreed to settlements after alleged abuse by their late boss Roger Ailes. How can free speech and free press advocates defend these hush money payments?
Explore the full archive of Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott.
Listen to Audio Version
Listen to audio versions of all episodes of Right Angle and Bill Whittle Now on your podcast app:
2 replies on “Shut Up and Leave: NBCUniversal Implies NDA Never Muzzled Sex Harassment Victims”
Does anyone know the difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment from a law viewpoint? Did the lawmakers ever include “harassment” to the lexicon of criminal offense? If not then this episode is a red herring.
The Bible stipulates that a victim of a crime MUST have secondary evidence (i.e. eye witness, finger prints, DNA etc.) to the crime. Any hint of a doubt of the defendant’s guilt MUST result in acquittal. A sane jury should never convict ANYONE solely on the basis of one person’s testimony. This is why people are INNOCENT until proven guilty. If a woman is truly a victim of sexual assault, she literally has no recourse unless she has secondary evidence to her victimization. The problem with most sex assault allegations is that it’s virtually always a case of “he said, she said.” Harvey Weinstein is innocent until there are two forms of evidence to a singular crime. For all we know, every one of those women could have shamefully consented to Weinstein’s advances in order to advance their own career. In a healthy society, the solution is for the woman to NEVER put herself in a situation that would expose her to such danger. But, we don’t have a healthy society anymore, do we?
You can negotiate the terms of employment if what you have to offer is so valuable and unique that the employer can’t afford not to negotiate. Then if you offer terms that are in fact fair and just for all parties, there is a good chance they will accept.
I know this because I have actually done it several times with both sides winning what they deserve to win with neither side losing anything worth having. This with major US/International corporations and with only myself doing the negotiation on my behalf.
The corporations actually and willingly gave up the power to prohibit me from finding employment in my field of expertise as well as claims on any non-proprietary work product I might create or contribute. I agreed not to disclose information that was specifically related to their actually marketed proprietary products and operations excluding any product or process (past present, future) with which I had no direct or incidental involvement or responsibility. This was a totally fair and just agreement for both parties.