See z.B Skrbina v. Fleming Cos. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 [“In general, a written authorization expires any obligation that falls under the conditions of publication, unless it has been obtained through fraud, deception, misrepresentation, coercion or unlawful influence”.]; Hill v. Kaiser Aetna (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 188 [Severance Pay Discussion].↥ If you offer the right of withdrawal to employees under the age of 40 and they do not exercise that right, it helps to find that the waiver was sweaty and voluntary – the standard for Waivers of Titles VII and ADA. But there is a contradictory commercial reflection: the worker could exercise the right, in which case the company ends with a right that it would not otherwise have. How do employees convince a judge to invalidate a declassification agreement they have signed? Mainly by proving that the employer forced the worker to sign or otherwise coerced the worker. Or by showing that the worker did not fully understand the authorization and therefore did not “knowingly” and “voluntarily” exempt the rights against the employer. Employees do not need to use their entire 21 or 45 days to review the agreement and can sign it earlier (but do not have to sign before leaving the termination meeting; they must take the document with them). The balance of an unused reference period shall be considered invalid.
Keithley v. Civil Service Bd. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443 [“In essence, undue influence is that a dominant person exerts undue pressure on a person in the service, so that the manifest will of the person is effectively the will of the dominant person”.]; Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 130 [“The characteristic of such a conviction is a strong pressure, a pressure that affects mental, moral or emotional weakness to such an extent that it approaches the limits of constraint. In this sense, undue influence has been called persuasion.” ». ↥ While it may be tempting to add language to the agreement that seems to prevent the employee from filing claims with government authorities, employers should be frivolous.
These clauses do not prevent the person from filing an indictment with a government agency such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or from participating in state investigations or proceedings. Workers over the age of 40 are covered by the Law on the Protection of Older Workers. When drawing up a termination agreement for people over the age of 40, a company must comply with the laws established to protect this class. Given the legal uncertainty, employers may wish to address the eligibility requirements in their decision-making units for underlying dismissal decisions as well as the redundancy pay programme. However, this is not a risk-free approach. However, the worker may accept and sign the termination of the employment contract before the end of this period, if he so wishes, but without any external pressure. . . .