Why won't ESLwatch remove a review after being informed that the review represents a breach of an employee or candidate contractual obligation (such as confidentiality or non-disparagement)?

Our Terms of Use prohibit users from posting content that violates contractual obligations. This means that when users accept our Terms of Use by submitting content, they are representing to us that they are not violating a binding contractual obligation. When it comes to determining whether or not the author of the post is violating a binding obligation, it is often impossible for us to make that determination. We are not in a position to conclusively determine the existence of an obligation, its applicability to the posted content, and whether the obligation is enforceable under applicable countries law. We do not remove content in these circumstances, as we do not feel that we can act as the finder of fact.

Employers should also bear in mind that employee policies and contractual provisions that restrict the rights of workers to share information with each other about wages and working conditions are unlawful under most counties law.

We endeavor to screen from our site posts that appear to us, in our sole discretion, to contain valuable trade secret information (e.g. source code, customer lists, teaching techniques, research and development activities, budgets, technical know-how). But we do not act as judge and jury for factual disputes about violations of contractual obligations, and our Terms of Use makes clear that the user alone is responsible for what they post.

Leave a reply