# Is a coerced signature binding? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700 "2005-09-08T19:57:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/21 "2005-09-09T16:38:44Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, nowadays the only jobs that offer retirement or pension benefits are either those upper management jobs you talked about or union jobs. For the reason you mentioned. If they can fire you the day before you get your pension then why would they bother pretending to give you a pension in the first place? They can’t do that at union shops because the union would give them trouble. > > I work in the high-tech industry. Wages are pretty good, benefits are pretty good. But no one has a pension plan because no one expects to stay at the same company for 30 years, no one expects the companies to last 30 years. Depending on a pension from a company that can fire you on a whim isn’t very smart planning. Oh yeah, I’m aware of the new style of employment, and it may prove to be a good thing. But you’re stuck with the old folks, like me, who are still in the old school and already done our 30 years… So, until we all die off, you gotta put up with us. It’s part of the transition. I’m AARP, and I vote. 😉 Of course there _are_ those troublesome service workers (janitors and such) which no one’s figured out how to deal with. Labor camps? I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/22 "2005-09-09T16:46:25Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Stop spreading non-truths. Because you may work for a crappy company doesn’t mean we all do. I’m _not_ upper management by a very, very, very large degree. I have very good retirement benefits, a pension in addition to a 401(k), medical retirement, and no absurd union contract to guarantee me any of this. I’m vested now, and it can all be taken away from from non-vested, and I can be fired prior to retirement, but it doesn’t matter; vesting is protected by federal law. Really? I also work for a company with vested retirement benefits. But if fired “for cause” I lose all the company contribution, which is substantial. Are you sure you keep it all? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/23 "2005-09-09T16:54:51Z")
BTW; refusing to sign is, I’m told, insubordination. AKA “for cause”. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/24 "2005-09-09T17:33:10Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > BTW; refusing to sign is, I’m told, insubordination. AKA “for cause”. I once won an unemployment case for a guy based on similar circumstances, the employer insisted that he sign a “request” for what essentially amounted to a demotion. When he refused they fired him. They tried to fight his unemployment claim based on insubordination. They lost. Of course, it’s not like they had to hire him back or anything. It wasn’t a union shop, so employment was at-will. He got unemployment benefits and that’s all. In his case, though, there was no reason for him to sign the document. The case would have had a different result if his signature had been required by his existing employment agreement or necessary for the continuation of his existing job, as the release in the OP probably is. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/25 "2005-09-09T17:44:00Z")
> [@cstamets](#): > > The way it wass explained to me when I asked about it was that sort of language was too broad to be enforceable. They couldn’t hold you to something that more or less prevented you from working in your profession entirely. Something that said you can’t quit the contracting company to work for the client they placed you at without their permission (which usually involved payment from the client company) could be enforced, because it didn’t prevent you from working for a different company. Yes, in my mind, the enforcement of these provisions is really dependent on the mood you catch the judge in. I do not work in the field that much, but I think the facts of each particular case _really_ tend to color the outcome (in effect, making the law) even more than they do in other types of cases. Different states have different variations, and it seems that even within the same state, there are many different ways to describe when geographical and temporal scope are reasonable or not. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether it prohibits the former employee from working or otherwise exercising his trade. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether the scope was reasonably related to the employer’s business base. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether the limitation period was consistent with the amount of time necessary to train the former employee’s successor. And so on. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/26 "2005-09-09T17:50:47Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Yes, in my mind, the enforcement of these provisions is really dependent on the mood you catch the judge in. I do not work in the field that much, but I think the facts of each particular case _really_ tend to color the outcome (in effect, making the law) even more than they do in other types of cases. > > Different states have different variations, and it seems that even within the same state, there are many different ways to describe when geographical and temporal scope are reasonable or not. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether it prohibits the former employee from working or otherwise exercising his trade. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether the scope was reasonably related to the employer’s business base. Sometimes it seems that it depends on whether the limitation period was consistent with the amount of time necessary to train the former employee’s successor. And so on. Yes. These cases are very fact dependent, which is one of the reasons that people say they are hard to enforce. I’ve handled several cases involving noncompete agreements and it has always been expensive and time consuming. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/27 "2005-09-09T18:31:17Z")
> [@chrisk](#): > > That is… isn’t there some kind of protected right to seek out legal assistance in contract matters? If taken literally, ‘sign it now or you’re fired’ could be extended to say that even taking a reasonable amount of time to read through the contract on your own is not sufficient, thus ensuring that the employee simply has to take potluck on what he’s agreeing to. In some kinds of cases, especially those involving prenuptial agreements a court will look at the amount of time allowed to review the contract and whether both parties were able to consult with a lawyer as _factors_ determining whether the contract was signed under duress. \*E.g., \* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nh&vol=0204\yanna031&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nh&vol=0204%5Cyanna031&invol=1) I’m unaware of any common law right to counsel before signing a contract. OTOH, back in the day, before the objective theory of contracts was adopted, a person could argue that there was no meeting of the minds, and that the contract wasn’t binding. The objective theory undermines this approach. See generally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts) But see, [The Origins of the Objective Theory of Contract Formation and Interpretation by Joseph M. Perillo :: SSRN](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID262445_code010306520.pdf?abstractid=262445&mirid=1) (pdf) (arguing that the objective theory has always been dominant). OTOOH, the OP is proablay talking about a waiver–not a contract. A waiver must be knowing and voluntary. (Unable to find satisfactory citation within a reasonable time-frame). Some courts interpret this standard to require that the person signing the waiver actually know what they are signing. This can sometimes offer a defense. There are also at least two special cases involving waivers where more elaborate requirements are imposed: 1. Under the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act: > [@](#): > > 1. An individual may not waive any right or claim under this chapter unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Except as provided in paragraph (2), a waiver may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum— > (A) the waiver is part of an agreement between the individual and the employer that is written in a manner calculated to be understood by such individual, or by the average individual eligible to participate; > (B) the waiver specifically refers to rights or claims arising under this chapter; > (C) the individual does not waive rights or claims that may arise after the date the waiver is executed; > (D) the individual waives rights or claims only in exchange for consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled; > (E) the individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement; > (F) > (i) the individual is given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement; or > (ii) if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the individual is given a period of at least 45 days within which to consider the agreement; > (G) the agreement provides that for a period of at least 7 days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement, and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the revocation period has expired; > (H) if a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the employer (at the commencement of the period specified in subparagraph (F)) informs the individual in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate, as to— > (i) any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by such program, any eligibility factors for such program, and any time limits applicable to such program; and > (ii) the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected for the program. > (2) A waiver in settlement of a charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or an action filed in court by the individual or the individual’s representative, alleging age discrimination of a kind prohibited under section 623 or 633a of this title may not be considered knowing and voluntary unless at a minimum— > (A) subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) have been met; and > (B) the individual is given a reasonable period of time within which to consider the settlement agreement. > (3) In any dispute that may arise over whether any of the requirements, conditions, and circumstances set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), or (H) of paragraph (1), or subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2), have been met, the party asserting the validity of a waiver shall have the burden of proving in a court of competent jurisdiction that a waiver was knowing and voluntary pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2). > **[29 U.S. Code § 626 - Recordkeeping, investigation, and enforcement](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/626)** 1. Miranda: > [@](#): > > when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/384/436.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/28 "2005-09-09T18:34:27Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Yes. These cases are very fact dependent, which is one of the reasons that people say they are hard to enforce. I’ve handled several cases involving noncompete agreements and it has always been expensive and time consuming. Couldn’t agree more, both with this and the prior comment about judicial decisions varying widely. I practice in this area, and my stock speech to clients makes this point. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/29 "2005-09-09T18:45:01Z")
> [@Random](#): > > Couldn’t agree more, both with this and the prior comment about judicial decisions varying widely. I practice in this area, and my stock speech to clients makes this point. You really can’t avoid it, can you? And they always want a TRO, too. TROs and prelimary injunctions are quite expensive. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/30 "2005-09-09T18:50:43Z")
A Human Resources person once told me that such “releases” were really use to inform people that testing is done and is treated seriously. What better way to tell people not to use drugs but to tell them “we test randomly!” ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/31 "2005-09-09T19:17:08Z")
This is incidental to the OP, but I figured I’d mention that [Microsoft is suing Google](http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/biztech/09/05/microsoft.google.reut/) after Google hired one of Microsofts top executives, mainly due to a non-compete clause. It’s getting a lot of play in tech circles for sure. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/32 "2005-09-09T19:34:53Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > A Human Resources person once told me that such “releases” were really use to inform people that testing is done and is treated seriously. What better way to tell people not to use drugs but to tell them “we test randomly!” What you’re referring to are, I think, pre-employment agreements. Those are entirely voluntary. What I speak of is offered at the time of testing, after the employee has invested time in the company, and are definately _not_ voluntary. My company, BTW, only tests employees in so-called “safety sensitive” jobs, thereby excusing most management personel. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/33 "2005-09-09T19:48:01Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > 1. Miranda: > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436) Which allows me to seque nicely into the intersection of these inquiries: _Garrity v. New Jersey_, which addressed the situation of: “Here are your Miranda rights. Now, talk to these officers, or you’ll be fired.” In _Garrity_, several police officers were being investigated for fixing traffic tickets. They were interrogated after being read their Miranda rights, but then told although they had the right to refuse to answer questions, if they exercised that right, they would be fired. They spoke with interrogators, and subsequently their statements were used against thme at trial. They appealed, claiming the statements were involuntary. Any guesses what the Court said? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/34 "2005-09-09T20:04:12Z")
Please, **Bricker** , break it to me gently. I would _hope_ the court ruled in favor of the cops, but I still naively wish for justice in the justice system. This heavily conservative “you have that right, but there can be consequences” thing is getting tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/35 "2005-09-09T20:10:17Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > Really? I also work for a company with vested retirement benefits. But if fired “for cause” I lose all the company contribution, which is substantial. > Are you sure you keep it all? There’s no way to lose it, except consider that for my hire date it’s a combined 80 years age+time-in-service. So… I’d be looking to be 74 before being able to collect any of it. And the cash portion based on just over five years would be rather small. And the 401(k) – even with the vested portion – isn’t a whole lot to retire on at my age, so “not losing it” doesn’t really amount to anything at my age. We also say at my company that no one ever gets fired. Union folks get laid off, but the rest of us leave via attrition, until recently (and they were management). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/36 "2005-09-09T20:47:56Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > Please, **Bricker** , break it to me gently. > I would _hope_ the court ruled in favor of the cops, but I still naively wish for justice in the justice system. > This heavily conservative “you have that right, but there can be consequences” thing is getting tiresome. Not to worry. > [@](#): > > The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 464-465, is “likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.” We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/37 "2005-09-09T21:02:34Z")
That does “Restoreth my faith…” 🙂 Now I hope that, if they indeed broke the law, they were punished through legitimate means. I, and my surrogate daughter Lisa Simpson, wish that. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/38 "2005-09-10T00:19:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not to worry. I wonder how an appeal by a terminated officer–one who refused to answer questions–would have fared. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700/39 "2005-09-10T01:05:56Z")
I wondered about that too, but didn’t **Bricker’s** cite answer that question? Or are we back to the whims of the court. You realize, I hope, that someday all you legal types, including judges, are going to be replaced by computer programs. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-coerced-signature-binding/320700.md?page=1)