Well, in particular, that one line I cited from the confidentiality agreement makes me suspicious of claimed Legal Violations #6-8 (regarding disclosure of wages).
And certainly claimed Legal Violation #2 also falls flat when you consider that these are trade secrets protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and leaking trade secrets is illegal.
#3 and #4 is contradicted by the presence of the Protected Activity section in the same confidentiality agreement, which permit such activity.
I'm not about to comb through supporting documents just to disprove the rest of the claims; we have lawyers whose job is to do that. But since I can relatively easily find contradictions between what I have readily available and what the lawsuit is asserting, I have doubts that the underlying lawsuit really holds much weight.
And certainly claimed Legal Violation #2 also falls flat when you consider that these are trade secrets protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and leaking trade secrets is illegal.
#3 and #4 is contradicted by the presence of the Protected Activity section in the same confidentiality agreement, which permit such activity.
I'm not about to comb through supporting documents just to disprove the rest of the claims; we have lawyers whose job is to do that. But since I can relatively easily find contradictions between what I have readily available and what the lawsuit is asserting, I have doubts that the underlying lawsuit really holds much weight.