Worked in three companies and in all of them every single fired (as was the case here) individual was offered severance. Usually it's 2 months + 2 weeks per year of work but higher severances are routinely offered if company feels person can be a problem. 64k (4-5 months of pay) is essentially go away money - not FB trying to really hush somebody. Even baseless rejected EEOC complain will cost more to resolve.
I was not talking about "severance" per se, but about a non-disparaging agreements. I would agree that severance is typical.
That being said, California, Oregon, Washington State, Georgia, getting 4-5 month's pay as severance? That doesn't even make sense from a business perspective, imo.
If you're small enough you are face to facing investors, everyone has experience with volatile employees. If you're larger, you don't care about a single player anyway. That's just my experience.
Most (if not all) severance agreements in case of firing include non-disparagement. Severance is just cost of business - HR sees volatile employee and automatically offer severance with not-sue, not-disparage agreement. Employment lawyers are $600/hour and a huge distraction.
> Most (if not all) severance agreements in case of firing include non-disparagement.
I've never seen it. Employment lawyers are very happy to take cases against companies, who have money. Just like non-competes, they have been dropped from contracts over the last few decades (severability applies anyway) on the west coast.
As a personal anecdote in California, somebody I managed got 1 month of fake employment (technically employed but without access to anything) + 2 month severance after being fired after 8 months on the job without any push from me or fired employee. And he was extremely nice and non-confrontational, just could not do the job.
