Staffers on former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign are now totally free from non-disclosure agreements they signed barring them from taking legal action or publicly disparaging Trump, as a federal judge formalized a settlement agreement Wednesday over a lawsuit claiming the agreements were overly restrictive.

 

The settlement voids non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements included in employment contracts for Trump 2016 staffers, barring the Trump campaign and any third parties from taking any action to enforce the agreements.

The settlement—which also involved the Trump campaign paying $450,000 to resolve the claims—was initially reached in January and preliminarily approved in June, but Wednesday’s order finalizes the agreement, and gives ex-staffers more legal protections after the campaign informed them last year they were no longer bound by the agreements.

 

According to the lawsuit, which was brought by Jessica Denson, the campaign’s onetime Hispanic outreach director, the NDAs prohibited employees from disclosing any “confidential information” about the campaign or using it to disparage Trump, his family or business, not only during their employment but “at all times thereafter.”

 

The non-disparagement agreement stated employees could not “demean or disparage publicly” Trump, his company or family during their work for the campaign and “at all times thereafter.”

Confidential information was described in the NDA as including “any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs of Mr. Trump or of any Family Member,” which Denson argued was overbroad and vague, and the agreement did not contain any exceptions for employees to bring legal action for alleged workplace misconduct.

 

FULL STORY

Excellent news.

 

And well done Jessica Denson, once again demonstrating its women who have the cojones to face down Trump.

 

Trump will of course be delighted that hundreds of his former staff have had their freedom of speech returned to them.

It's great to watch this fool implode! He's running out of BS!

What a strange decision. 

 

So they willingly signed NDA's but now they don't have to honour them. Which raises the question, what is the point of having them? I wonder if this will set a precedent for NDA's going forward? Somehow I doubt it, I guess this is an "exception to the rule" especially for Trump. 

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

What a strange decision. 

 

So they willingly signed NDA's but now they don't have to honour them. Which raises the question, what is the point of having them? I wonder if this will set a precedent for NDA's going forward? Somehow I doubt it, I guess this is an "exception to the rule" especially for Trump. 

Nothing at all strange about the decision.

Denson argued the NDA’s were vague in scope and impinged on the rights of employees to pursue legal redress for workplace misconduct.

 

The court agreed.

 

——

The use of NDA’s to deny employees rights to redress is being legally and legislatively challenged in multiple jurisdictions.

 

And very rightly so.

 

 

Edited October 20, 20232 yr by Chomper Higgot

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Denson argued the NDA’s were vague in scope and impinged on the rights of employees to pursue legal redress for workplace misconduct.

She shouldn't have signed it if she didn't like the terms. 

Just now, JonnyF said:

She shouldn't have signed it if she didn't like the terms. 

Yeh yeh.

 

Maybe she needed a job.

 

Maybe she had bills to pay.

 

Maybe she had poor advice, or non at all.

 

It doesn’t matter, the court tossed the NDA for her and over 400 of he coworkers.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yeh yeh.

 

Maybe she needed a job.

 

Maybe she had bills to pay.

 

Maybe she had poor advice, or non at all.

 

It doesn’t matter, the court tossed the NDA for her and over 400 of he coworkers.

Well, clearly the justice legal system has decided that on this occasion it doesn't matter what she signed, she can change her mind later when she decides that actually she doesn't like the terms very much. I mean, we all get to do that with agreements we sign don't we...

 

I wonder if such a precedent will be adhered to in future cases where Trump is not involved. 

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well, clearly the justice legal system has decided that on this occasion it doesn't matter what she signed, she can change her mind later when she decides that actually she doesn't like the terms very much. I mean, we all get to do that with agreements we sign don't we...

 

I wonder if such a precedent will be adhered to in future cases where Trump is not involved. 

It was Trump’s lawyers who drew up the NDAs, they obviously didn’t draft the document to avoid infringing the rights and freedoms of the employees.

 

Or maybe that was the whole point.

 

NDAs are frequently used to suppress individual’s rights, the court agreed this to be the case.

 

Thankfully the abusive application of NDA’s is being addressed elsewhere too.

 

Ordinary working people being given their rights back, it’s something to celebrate.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crack-down-on-misuse-of-non-disclosure-agreements-in-the-workplace

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Well, clearly the justice legal system has decided that on this occasion it doesn't matter what she signed, she can change her mind later when she decides that actually she doesn't like the terms very much. I mean, we all get to do that with agreements we sign don't we...

 

I wonder if such a precedent will be adhered to in future cases where Trump is not involved. 

Send him money Johnny he’s gonna need it!show him how much you care hummm?

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

Send him money Johnny he’s gonna need it!show him how much you care hummm?

Hey Tuhg, why would I send Trump my money? Don't like the guy, I just think people should honour the agreements they sign.

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Hey Tuhg, why would I send Trump my money? Don't like the guy, I just think people should honour the agreements they sign.

That’s certainly a reason not to like Trump, he reneges on deals, stiffs contractors, doesn’t even pay his lawyers.

 

He could have written a book on ‘The Art Of Breaking A Deal’.

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Hey Tuhg, why would I send Trump my money? Don't like the guy, I just think people should honour the agreements they sign.

Just almost dropped my coffee reading this.

 

Someone who defends everything about trump, in numerous posts.

 

What alternative reality are you in, your a total Trump fan boy, but then fail to admit it. 🤡

 

 

4 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Just almost dropped my coffee reading this.

 

Someone who defends everything about trump, in numerous posts.

 

What alternative reality are you in, your a total Trump fan boy, but then fail to admit it. 🤡

 

 

That's the problem with American politics. If you make a criticism of Biden, everyone accuses you of being a Trump fanboy, MAGA, QAnon etc. It's a pretty juvenile mindset and you epitomize it. I'd imagine it is why you have had to create this new forum identity. I'm pretty sure I know what your other one was/is.

 

It's possible to think they are both unsuitable for the position. I have criticized (and defended) Trump on many occasions, depending on the facts presented for that particular issue. The fact you choose to ignore that, says nothing about me and everything about you.

 

As I have stated, people are free to sign or not sign NDA's. If they sign them, they should honour them. Not change their minds and sue years later. But that's just my opinion as someone who honours agreements they make, even if they turn out to be less advantageous than I first predicted.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What a strange decision. 

 

So they willingly signed NDA's but now they don't have to honour them. Which raises the question, what is the point of having them? I wonder if this will set a precedent for NDA's going forward? Somehow I doubt it, I guess this is an "exception to the rule" especially for Trump. 

 Employees couldn't bring legal action for alleged workplace misconduct because of these NDA's.

Why do you think this is normal. Just because of your love for Trump or do you oppose all workers rights?

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

That's the problem with American politics. If you make a criticism of Biden, everyone accuses you of being a Trump fanboy, MAGA, QAnon etc. It's a pretty juvenile mindset and you epitomize it. I'd imagine it is why you have had to create this new forum identity. I'm pretty sure I know what your other one was/is.

 

It's possible to think they are both unsuitable for the position. I have criticized (and defended) Trump on many occasions, depending on the facts presented for that particular issue. The fact you choose to ignore that, says nothing about me and everything about you.

 

As I have stated, people are free to sign or not sign NDA's. If they sign them, they should honour them. Not change their minds and sue years later. But that's just my opinion as someone who honours agreements they make, even if they turn out to be less advantageous than I first predicted.

It's the same with any contract including elements which are against the law.

For example, are you claiming that consumers who find out they signed a contract including abusive clauses should just shut up and not sue?

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What a strange decision. 

 

So they willingly signed NDA's but now they don't have to honour them. Which raises the question, what is the point of having them? I wonder if this will set a precedent for NDA's going forward? Somehow I doubt it, I guess this is an "exception to the rule" especially for Trump. 

The reason why the NDAs aren't binding should be obvious. These people weren't employees of Trump. They are employees of the US government. According to your way of thinking, transparency in government should take 2nd place to a private interest. It's true that Trump thinks that these government workers are his personal employees - just reference his statements re the justice dept - but they're not. 

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

And well done Jessica Denson, once again demonstrating its women who have the cojones to face down Trump.

 

 

 

Some of today's women do have that physical feature. 

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Some of today's women do have that physical feature. 

Tastes differ.

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What a strange decision. 

 

So they willingly signed NDA's but now they don't have to honour them. Which raises the question, what is the point of having them? I wonder if this will set a precedent for NDA's going forward? Somehow I doubt it, I guess this is an "exception to the rule" especially for Trump. 

It's a court decision which will IMO have unintended consequences elsewhere.

18 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

 Employees couldn't bring legal action for alleged workplace misconduct because of these NDA's.

Why do you think this is normal. Just because of your love for Trump or do you oppose all workers rights?

If they signed them they agreed to abide by them. If they didn't agree they should have gone elsewhere to work.

I'm not aware that anyone was forced to work in a Trump business.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they signed them they agreed to abide by them. If they didn't agree they should have gone elsewhere to work.

I'm not aware that anyone was forced to work in a Trump business.

Not everybody is a legal expert and now it is proven that they were illegal. A lot of people don't have much choice where to work as they need the money desperately. But hey, keep defending that racist, thief.

Just now, FritsSikkink said:

Not everybody is a legal expert and now it is proven that they were illegal. A lot of people don't have much choice where to work as they need the money desperately. But hey, keep defending that racist, thief.

Try telling the bank that you didn't understand the agreement you signed- they'd laugh at you.

 

People in America always have a choice, and if they signed something they should not have that's on them.

 

Your choice of language about Trump is somewhat amusing, given he is winning public support in the millions with every court case against him, and your hero biden is exposed for the shambolic bumbler he is every time he goes on tv.

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try telling the bank that you didn't understand the agreement you signed- they'd laugh at you.

 

People in America always have a choice, and if they signed something they should not have that's on them.

 

Your choice of language about Trump is somewhat amusing, given he is winning public support in the millions with every court case against him, and your hero biden is exposed for the shambolic bumbler he is every time he goes on tv.

If Biden is a shambloc bumbler what’s that make Putin?just because he thinks before he speaks his words have consequences he’s careful and elderly .he’s also kicking some rear end he’s heading a party that actually functions he’s doing good for the country further more why should anyone be concerned about giving former campaign workers the freedom to talk about the candidate they worked for unless there’s something to hide hummm?

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Tastes differ.

So does science it would seem.

32 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

So does science it would seem.

But some folk’s obsession with the appendages on other people’s bodies remains a constant.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try telling the bank that you didn't understand the agreement you signed- they'd laugh at you.

 

People in America always have a choice, and if they signed something they should not have that's on them.

 

Your choice of language about Trump is somewhat amusing, given he is winning public support in the millions with every court case against him, and your hero biden is exposed for the shambolic bumbler he is every time he goes on tv.

"Try telling the bank that you didn't understand the agreement you signed- they'd laugh at you."

Not on topic, the NDA's are void.

 

Trump will go to jail and this are his supporters: Texas Republicans backing away from MAGA group that's 'infested' with Hitler fans (msn.com)

 

Biden isn't my hero.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But some folk’s obsession with the appendages on other people’s bodies remains a constant.

You brought up the subject, I merely responded to your obsession.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try telling the bank that you didn't understand the agreement you signed- they'd laugh at you.

 

People in America always have a choice, and if they signed something they should not have that's on them.

 

Your choice of language about Trump is somewhat amusing, given he is winning public support in the millions with every court case against him, and your hero biden is exposed for the shambolic bumbler he is every time he goes on tv.

It is very likely that Banks actually design contracts which are  in accordance with the law.

The issue in the OP is that the NDA was not in accordance with the law, as confirmed by the court decision.

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You brought up the subject, I merely responded to your obsession.

False: