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

The D4vd concert is, inexplicably, still happening

Following the discovery of a body in the singer’s Tesla, early ticketholders are trying to sell at a loss while some are demanding his SF show be canceled

September 18, 2025

Testing the waters

Is an upcoming ‘water tasting’ an extremely dry practical joke, or is something cooler bubbling up? 

September 18, 2025

One battle after another

A highway fight sparked Joel Engardio’s recall, but race and class conflicts sealed the deal

September 17, 2025

The Slop Stops Here: We bought a billboard

To tell the city about our work, we’re embracing the physical world

September 17, 2025

Flour & Branch sued by landlord

The buzzy brunch spot near Oracle Park is behind on rent

September 16, 2025

Didja hear the one about San Francisco being back?

How many times can Daniel Lurie tell us the city is back? Many, many, many

September 16, 2025