Skip to Content

San Francisco Chronicle staffers asked to sign buyout agreement that likely includes an illegal clause

About five percent of the Chronicle's staff were approved to take a buyout, first offered at the beginning of the month

Eleven employees at the San Francisco Chronicle have requested and have been approved for a buyout, first offered at the beginning of the month, according to a contract viewed by Gazetteer SF. But the paper may have violated federal labor law by including a non-disparagement clause in its severance contracts, according to an expert.

Staffers who requested buyouts have been asked to sign an agreement from Hearst, the Chronicle's parent company, which includes a clause promising “not to do or say anything, verbally or in writing, directly or indirectly, that reflects negatively on or otherwise detrimentally affects any Releasee’s products or services.” If workers do not sign, they will not be eligible for severance, but will still likely lose their jobs, according to the contract, which has been reviewed by Gazetteer SF.

Non-disparagement clauses like this one cannot be included in any severance contract, thanks to a National Labor Relations Board ruling in 2023, said Jason Lohr, a litigation attorney at Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich. 

“I just don’t think that clause could be enforceable,” Lohr, who is unaffiliated with the Chronicle or its union, told Gazetteer after reviewing the section of the buyout offer. “What the NLRB wants to do is to allow workers to communicate with each other about anything in the job site, and by saying you can’t talk about this stuff at work, you’re infringing upon the rights that they’re entitled.”

Workers were not allowed to read the agreement before requesting a buyout. In a memo notifying the paper's 200-some staffers about the buyouts, Chronicle publisher Bill Nagel wrote that employees who decline to sign the agreement will still be “terminated by reason of submitting the program application form as your resignation.” Additionally, Nagel wrote that “the terms offered now will not be offered in the future.”

Lohr emphasized that workers who do sign the agreement will not be bound by the non-disparagement clause under NLRB rules, should they wish to talk about their former employer after taking the buyout. (Anyone who does is welcome to contact this reporter at joshua@gazetteer.co.) 

“These employees can say whatever they want about the Chronicle and the Chronicle cannot enforce that,” he said. 

Nagel did not respond to a request for comment from Gazetteer

Editor’s note: The author was a member of the Chronicle’s union from January 2021 to October 2021. He was a news reporter at SFGATE, which is editorially independent from the Chronicle


Text us tips and we'll send you stories.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Gazetteer SF

TikTok is being overrun by Sean Parker’s royal hamsters

An AI-generated hamster isn’t cool. You know what is? A billion AI-generated hamsters, all speaking in a vaguely Irish accent

August 20, 2025

I reported from an ICE action on Sansome and all I got was a face full of pepper spray

Federal agents are stepping up their actions against protesters and, apparently, the press

August 20, 2025

Some pig

San Francisco companies are creating cell-cultivated meats. Is this the future of nutrition for a hungry planet, or another Impossible dream?

August 20, 2025

Job hunting is now a full-time job

With AI breaking both sides of the hiring process, LinkedIn is less a platform to find work than a place to vent about how bad the search has become

August 18, 2025

Friday is the new Tuesday for anti-ICE protests

Preventing ICE from grabbing and detaining immigrants is becoming a full-time job

August 15, 2025

A lasagna that contains multitudes

Tasting a dish that layers in culture, history, and flavor at Menlo Park’s Yeobo, Darling

August 15, 2025