in the vicinityvideo wants to be President Trump Reform of the tax code for a second time?
A former staffer on President Trump – 2016-campaign has a collection lawsuit, in the hope of the cancellation of the confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements campaign, the workers were to sign.
The lawsuit was filed by the former assistant, Jessica Denson, and argued that the agreements, which is the trump campaign had staff, volunteers and contractors to sign illegal The agreements prohibit to criticize a signatory to ever publicly or disparagingly Trump, his family and his company, and also the bars, the disclosure of private or confidential information.
While the trump-gone campaign, after a number of former employees, who spoke with public money, against the President, especially Omarosa Manigault Newman and Cliff Sims Denson’s lawsuit is the most comprehensive attack on the campaign use of confidentiality agreements to stifle criticism of Trump.
PRESIDENT TRUMP NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN SPARKS PROTESTS
According to a report from BuzzFeed News, the lawsuit from thousands of former employees, volunteers, contractors, and, if the suit is successful, it could give you the freedom to speak publicly about their time on the campaign without fear of legal or financial impact.could
Denson’s lawyers argue that the agreements campaign were the workers to sign are illegal, and to punish because they are employees from being sued for things such as workplace discrimination, harassment, unpaid wages and other issues.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The Form of NDAs, effectively strip employees, contractors and volunteers who keep track of their ability, all the behaviour of their rights to redress will fail in the workplace,” wrote Denson’s lawyers in the arbitration filing. “Nothing and everything, what you could do is contain of need of some information, which could find a trump card to Person disparaging or disclosure of confidential information.”
They also argue that the NDA is too vague and gives Trump the discretion to decide what is “private” and “confidential”, that there is no time or geographical limits, and “there is no legitimate purpose.” The lawyers are also claiming to declare the agreement invalid because it allowed a government to restrain the actor, a person, the right to freedom of expression under the First amendment.