A severance agreement is a formal written agreement between a company and one of its executives to compensate the executive for relinquishing certain of his rights in the event that his employment is terminated by the company.
Two common scenarios in which the severance agreement is present are 1) when a company lays off a number of employees, including the executive, and 2) when a company desires to let go of a liability in the person of a specific executive. In these cases, the company will entice the executive, prior to his termination, to sign a severance agreement in exchange for giving up certain of his rights. Primarily, these rights are claims that the executive might bring against the company for disputed wages, discrimination, or wrongful termination.
Severance agreements are not compulsory. But they are a form of goodwill, for the terminated executive can be mollified and the remaining executives can be comforted through their use. No law obligates a company to provide severance agreements. However, if a company uses them, the company and the agreement must conform to certain legal strictures. For one, the agreement must be in writing. For another, the company must allow the executive a reasonable period of time to consider the agreement and to consult a lawyer. Additionally, the executive is afforded a statutory period of time in which he may revoke his acceptance of the agreement.
Importantly, despite the fact that the severance agreement has been labeled a legal bribe, the existence of severance agreements does not give companies carte blanche to intimidate their executives. That is, a severance agreement must offer the executive an additional incentive to what he is already due. The company may neither offer to pay the executive what he has already earned (salary, bonuses, benefits), nor threaten to withhold the same. The severance agreement is meant to be an additional carrot.
It may happen that a company will have a de facto severance agreement, whereby executives are compensated in the event of termination, but no written company guidelines exist to govern the process. This can be tricky for both sides, but if the executive can establish company patterns that support a de facto severance system then he will likely prevail.
An executive may reject the agreement and perhaps should if he believes he has a legitimate grievance against the company that may entitle him to greater compensation than what the severance agreement offers. Alternatively, he may also counter the company’s offer with a more favorable one. There is, however, a caveat. The executive’s counteroffer is effectively a rejection of the company’s offer, and the company is not obliged to maintain its offer after the executive has put forward a counteroffer. That most companies do just this in the normal course of business should not overshadow the fact that a counteroffer could theoretically leave the executive empty handed after his termination.
Severance agreements consist of compensation elements (base pay for a year or several; bonuses; stock options; health benefits perhaps); restrictive covenants (declarations not to bring claims against the company; turning over of proprietary company material); and other agreements (the company’s agreement to provide letters of recommendation or to help finding the executive another job). Many agreements also contain confidentiality and non-compete clauses that limit the executive’s ability to hurt the company after his termination. These clauses must protect the company’s legitimate business interests without impinging on the executive’s ability to work. It happens, of course, that companies overzealously protect themselves and try to hold their executives to unreasonable confidentiality and non-compete clauses.
Popularity: 5% [?]
