Your post is a great example of how these 'people' tie their victims up in knots of self-doubt.
I have always believed that class action is the best route by which to go after these 'entities', in that this form of litigation tends to limit possible legal exposure and mental duress among co-claimants.
See:
[www.timesunion.com]
Also, I note that the James Damore claim against Google (a great example of workplace fascism in action) was filed as a class action suit, with another employee being brought in to constitute a 'class'. I believe this might protect Mr. Damore from being singled out as a malcontent, and allows the litigators to gather evidence regarding systemic practices.
From a PR perspective, it also makes the defendant appear to be as calculating and nasty as they usually are.
As for the NDA, I am wondering AGAIN if any reader of the forum was required to sign an NDA as part of an LGAT-style corporate development program. As a provider of corporate development programs, I can say that this practice would be absolutely 'extraordinary'.
bakkagirl
I have always believed that class action is the best route by which to go after these 'entities', in that this form of litigation tends to limit possible legal exposure and mental duress among co-claimants.
See:
[www.timesunion.com]
Also, I note that the James Damore claim against Google (a great example of workplace fascism in action) was filed as a class action suit, with another employee being brought in to constitute a 'class'. I believe this might protect Mr. Damore from being singled out as a malcontent, and allows the litigators to gather evidence regarding systemic practices.
From a PR perspective, it also makes the defendant appear to be as calculating and nasty as they usually are.
As for the NDA, I am wondering AGAIN if any reader of the forum was required to sign an NDA as part of an LGAT-style corporate development program. As a provider of corporate development programs, I can say that this practice would be absolutely 'extraordinary'.
bakkagirl