Sky News exposes the scale of staff-on-staff bullying at UK schools from more than 320 current and former teachers. Some have suffered a devastating emotional toll and were paid thousands to "keep quiet".

When Maya* started a new teaching job, she did not expect to be called the n-word as she walked down the corridor.

The bullying from her fellow teachers proved relentless. She was called a “curry lover” and believes she was hidden from meeting parents at one point due to her skin colour.

It was not just racism she faced there but also sexism. Male colleagues told her she would have to “bend over a desk to get a promotion” and had “blowjob lips”. Incidents like these happened “almost every day”, she says.

Eventually forced to leave her job, Maya signed a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) making her unable to speak about the abuse she suffered. As part of the conditions of her exit, she also received a significant payout, which she describes as “money to keep quiet”.

  • @givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    28•8 hours ago

    As part of the conditions of her exit, she also received a significant payout, which she describes as “money to keep quiet”.

    In lots of countries the payout is contingent on the NDA.

    Violate the NDA, they take the money back.

    So they can’t legally stop someone from talking, but there’s an incentive to following the NDA.

    • @ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5•4 hours ago

      Best to talk to a lawyer for specifics, but like non-compete agreements, NDAs often include things that can’t legally be enforced. The people wanting you to sign the NDA just hope you don’t know better and you’ll shut up.

      If you know better, you can take their money and then disclose the facts anyway.

    • @fishpen0@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•3 hours ago

      In the US the clawback itself is no longer legal if it is part of a severance agreement. They can’t take the money back if you talk about them

      FYI

      As is often the case, when a presidential administration changes, so may a prior rule issued by the National Labor Relation Boards (NLRB or the Board). On February 21, 2023, the Board returned to its pre-Trump administration rule: broad confidentiality and non-disparagement terms in severance agreements will be deemed unlawful if they tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce an employee’s ability to speak about the severance agreement or otherwise communicate with other employees about their former employer. The prior Trump-era rulings allowed employers to include confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements, but the NLRB’s latest ruling in McLaren Macomb reverts to the old rule placing employers in an uncertain situation with their current and future severance agreements.