Meta's UK Arbitration 'Threatens to Bankrupt' Facebook Whistleblower, Says Her Lawyer (theguardian.com) 31
In a debate on employment rights, a U.K. Parliament member brought up Meta's former director of global public policy Sarah Wynn-Williams
Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said Wynn-Williams was facing a fine of $50,000 (£37,000) every time she breached an order secured by Meta preventing her from talking disparagingly about the company... "I am sure that the whole house and the government will stand with Sarah as we pass this legislation to ensure that whistleblowers and those with the moral courage to speak out are always protected...."
Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure. Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement... [The ruling came after Wynn-Williams published an exposé in March about her time at Facebook titled Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.] The ruling stated Wynn-Williams should stop promoting the book and, to the extent she could, stop further publication... Wynn-Williams has not spoken in public since appearing at the Senate hearing in April.
Wynn-Williams "remains silenced" according to her lawyer, who tells the Guardian that Meta's arbitration proceedings in the U.K. "threaten to bankrupt" the whistleblower.
Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure. Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement... [The ruling came after Wynn-Williams published an exposé in March about her time at Facebook titled Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.] The ruling stated Wynn-Williams should stop promoting the book and, to the extent she could, stop further publication... Wynn-Williams has not spoken in public since appearing at the Senate hearing in April.
Wynn-Williams "remains silenced" according to her lawyer, who tells the Guardian that Meta's arbitration proceedings in the U.K. "threaten to bankrupt" the whistleblower.
Don't you understand yet ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Money buys you the justice that you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny but actually too true to be funny.
However I have a new theory about moderation on Slashdot. First you have to pass a reverse CAPTCHA test. The mod points are then only given to accounts that can prove they are not human.
On the story itself, I think we are all so fscked that it doesn't even make sense to think about solution approaches. The giant corporate cancers can always find a suitable jurisdiction where they they fsck you if'n they want to.
However it would reach a new level of Funny if
Re: Don't you understand yet ? (Score:2)
Is that the money in Meta's bank account or the money she deposited when she cashed her severance check?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Power imbalance (Score:5, Interesting)
Non-disparagement should be unenforceable. Libel and slander are still laws, so if the person is damaging your reputation with lies there are existing ways to handle that.
The power imbalance between a corporation and an individual means that non-disparagement clause was signed under duress, and given the nature of the clause it should be one that isn't legally enforceable.
Re:Power imbalance (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth is a defense to libel.
From some legal website:
Disparagement is a lower standard than defamation. While defamation requires someone to have said something false and damaging, disparagement can also capture something that is true but still damaging.
Another reason to make non-disparagement clauses unenforceable.
Re:Power imbalance (Score:4, Informative)
Truth is a defense to libel.
The truth is an absolute defense against libel in America.
It is a weaker defense in the UK.
Another difference is that in America, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the statement is false. In the UK, the BOP is on the defendant to show the statement is true.
Re: Power imbalance (Score:2, Troll)
This isn't a liable case, it's a contractual agreement she signed. This falls under contract law.
Also, be ware, don't assume UK laws are like US laws on matters like this - Police in UK are putting people in JAIL for tweets and other social media posts that the gov't thinks are "hate speech".
Re: (Score:1)
And the US is deporting them to random countries. Sounds like the UK is still the lesser of evils.
Re: (Score:3)
The point I apparently didn't make clear is truth is not a defense for disparagement.
Non-disparagement clauses are used to stop people damaging reputation by spreading truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
non-disparagement clause was signed under duress
The arbitrator imposed the non-disparagement clause.
Sarah agreed to the arbitration process (she couldn't afford to do otherwise), but didn't specifically agree to the ND clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Sounds like the best one Meta could afford?
Re: Power imbalance (Score:2)
Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure.
I'd *really* like to know the details around this separation agreement - was it just a piece of paper she signed as she headed out the door? Was a severance package tied to it? Contingent on it being signed?
If she signed the agreement to get a payout, she really has nothing to complain about. Yeah, I get 'corporations are horrible' and 'speaking truth to power', but honestly, if you cashed the check, you need to abide by the terms.
Can she pay back the money (assuming there was money) to be free of her agre
Re: (Score:2)
This was my thought as well. IANAL, but my understanding of basic contract law is that there must be a consideration given for the contract to be enforceable.
But having said that, there are plenty of businesses that will write unenforceable contracts as a bullying tactic. Even if they aren't enforceable, an individual cannot easily repel the endless legal resources of a corporation without incurring some serious financial damage.
Her real mistake though, is that if she is going to take on a mega corp like th
Re: Power imbalance (Score:2)
Bear in mind that this woman, while she is undoubtedly right about everything about Facebook's issues, almost certainly joined Facebook at the urging of, and as an asset of, NZSIS. Her background reeks worse than a CNN news analyst's.
Even on the freak occurrence that someone with that background decided to join Facebook for pure idealistic reasons wholly unrelated to their FPINT past (which she would have you believe), I can guarantee you that if I think she's a spook, Facebook thought so too. She was allow
Future Meta applicants take note (Score:2)
Would you really want to work for a company that has such a toxic and unethical culture that they need to force former employees from exposing it?
Re: (Score:2)
That make you sign a contract preventing you from discussing the truth.
Truth is not a defense to disparagement.
If Meta didn't want lies spread about it, non-defamatory would be enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you really want to work for a company that has such a toxic and unethical culture that they need to force former employees from exposing it?
That depends on how much I'm paid.
For enough money, I can tolerate almost anything.
Yeah, well (Score:5, Informative)
Labour? (Score:2)
Re: Labour? (Score:2)
A good point
Re: (Score:2)
Factually incorrect, the maximum sentence for blackmail in England is 14 years in prison.
She's not a whistleblower, she's an author (Score:3)
whistleblowers reveal criminal/corrupt activities to gov't officials for possible prosecution.
She wrote a book ostensibly about her time at Meta, she also signed a contract agreeing to not disparage her former employer.
Presumably the agreement doesn't prevent her from talking to the gov't as a whistleblower/witness, but it likely clearly prevents her from publishing a disparaging book about Meta, promoting her disparaging book, or talking to the press disparagingly about Meta.
Her lawyer is fighting for her right to publish/promote/sell her disparaging book despite the contract she (presumably) signed freely. (If she was coerced/forced, there are likely laws about that, but that's not what the lawyer is arguing.)
non-disparagement agreement should be illegal (Score:2)