Story 145

I was asked to sign an NDA at the end of my employment in connection with the non-renewal of my contract, despite the role having been presented as a permanent position. The agreement included terms that would prevent me from speaking about my experience with the organization or pursuing a human rights complaint or other legal action. This followed a period in which I experienced and raised concerns workplace harassment, raised concerns about how the organization handled accommodations, and was dismissed without cause shortly after returning from mental health-related sick leave.

There was no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms. The agreement was presented as a condition tied to receiving compensation, which created pressure to sign despite the breadth of the restrictions. I found the scope of the NDA, particularly the attempt to restrict truthful speech and access to legal recourse, very concerning. Being presented with this at a time when I was already dealing with the loss of my job and the impact on my health added significant stress and made the situation feel coercive.

I ultimately chose not to sign the NDA or accept the compensation offered. While this meant forgoing financial support at a difficult time, it allowed me to retain the ability to speak openly about my experience and seek support from my community. That ability was important for my mental health and for maintaining a sense of agency after what had been a destabilizing experience.

More broadly, this experience raised serious concerns for me about the use of NDAs in the arts sector, particularly within non-profit and artist-run organizations that position themselves as values-driven and committed to accessibility and inclusion. In this context, the use of an NDA to limit accountability felt especially troubling.