Contracts Lawyers for San Bernardino, California

In 1999 the California Legislature enacted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (the “UETA”), Civ. Code, §§ 1633.1 et seq., which provides that when a law requires a record to be in writing or requires a signature, an electronic record or signature satisfies the law. The law requires that any contract entered into between two parties may not be denied legal enforceability simply because of the use of an electronic signature. This has also be upheld in the employment law setting in some case law.

The broad general answer is that all agreements if drafted carefully have a termination provision. Reasons can be for cause or for no cause. This provision like all others in the contract are negotiated by the parties.

An indemnification agreement signed under duress may not be enforceable, but whether it can be voided depends on the specific facts of your case and the law in your jurisdiction. Contract law requires voluntary consent. If consent is obtained through coercion, the agreement is generally considered voidable by the party placed under duress. Legal Standard for Duress Courts recognize two main forms of duress. Physical duress involves threats of bodily harm and is the clearest ground to void a contract. Economic duress occurs when someone is pressured into signing due to wrongful or coercive economic threats. The threat of termination can sometimes qualify, but courts apply a high standard. They will look at factors such as whether you had any reasonable alternatives, whether the employer acted in bad faith, and whether the circumstances left you with no meaningful choice but to sign. For example, if you were told you’d be fired unless you signed immediately, with no chance to review the document or seek advice, that kind of artificial urgency could support a duress claim. On the other hand, if you were given time to consider the agreement and could have reasonably sought other employment, courts are less likely to find duress. Employment-at-Will Context Most states follow the at-will employment doctrine, which allows employers to terminate employees for almost any reason that is not illegal. Because of that, courts often treat workplace ultimatums as business pressure rather than wrongful coercion. However, the doctrine doesn’t give employers unlimited power. If the termination threat was used specifically to force you to assume liability for risks the employer is legally responsible for, that can be considered improper and may render the agreement voidable. Shifting Liability to Employees Indemnification clauses in employment contracts are closely scrutinized because employers generally bear the legal duty to maintain safe workplaces. Federal law under the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers, not employees, to ensure workplace safety. Courts in many states have refused to enforce agreements that shift liability for workplace accidents from the employer to the employee, especially if the employer is in a better position to insure against those risks. For example, California Civil Code §1668 voids contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for violations of law or duties owed to the public. Similar public policy principles apply in other states. Practical Challenges Even if duress can be established, you may still need to demonstrate that the indemnification terms themselves were unreasonable or unconscionable. Courts will often look at whether the agreement was one-sided, whether you had a meaningful opportunity to negotiate, and whether the employer sought to impose obligations that are inconsistent with public policy. Next Steps If you’re facing liability based on this indemnification clause, it’s important to preserve all evidence of how the agreement was presented to you. Keep records of emails, conversations, or witnesses that can confirm the circumstances of the signing. An employment or contract attorney in your state can evaluate whether the clause is enforceable, raise duress or unconscionability as defenses, and, if necessary, argue that public policy prevents shifting liability to you. On Contracts Counsel, you can connect with experienced contract attorneys who can review your agreement, consider the circumstances surrounding it, and guide you on your next steps.

These are not appropriate provisions for an NDA. An NDA should only cover the disclosure of confidential information - not development and assignment of intellectual property. You should not be transfering ownership of IP (or anything you develop) under an NDA. It should also not include an indemnification provision. Both of these clauses are appropriate for a development agreement or a professional services agreement. Putting this aside, if this were a development/professional services agreement, then you probably would want to protect any background technology or pre-existing works that you already own prior to the agreement (and would license the (co) rights to this background technology if necessary). And, you should not be indemnifying unless you intentionally used third party materials or knowingly stole another party's work to complete the development for (co). This is because it is not feasible for you to know what trademarks or patents are out in the world. If what you develop infringes, that should not be your responsibility/risk. You probably aren't getting paid enough to take on that risk. Copyright requires knowing that you stole copyrightable material, so the knowledge qualifier described above means that the (co) is protected under the indemnification for copyright infringement issues caused by you.

There are several reasons for using an employee separation agreement - it can be used to protect confidential information and IP, obtain general liability waiver for certain legal claims (e.g., wrongful termination), offer an employee certain benefits and severance pay, and include additional provisions (e.g., non-disparagement clause so the employee cannot spread negative information about the company, return of company equipment, etc.). Just as an employer is not legally required to offer a severance agreement, an employee is not required by law to sign a severance agreement. However, an employee may be more likely to sign a reasonable, balanced severance agreement. You can read more about severance agreements here: https://www.contractscounsel.com/t/g/us/severance-agreement/11#toc--circumstances-for-offering-severance-