You said context is critical and this is interesting because a friend of mine is currently dealing with how to handle termination for a contract job (1099 not W2) they were performing.
They had worked for this company for about about half a year now and every single itemized invoice, which should have been paid in X days, was paid over over 4 times X days late every time and the CEO was unresponsive to emails addressing this. The CEO was verbally abusive over the phone and in writing such as in emails and text messages. The contract stated that she would get $X amount for Y hours of work per week. After enough abuse they gave the company the notice and asked to be paid the already late invoice for the previous month and the current invoice submitted a day or two prior and due in less than a week. Now the company has presented a termination contract with all the sorts of reprehensible clauses we are discussing here and they are stating that the consideration is that they won't dispute the hours itemized on the last invoice. They refuse to pay the final invoice unless this person signs the termination contract. This isn't worth seeing a lawyer about given the invoice amount.
Furthermore, the person in question was hired to do administrative work for the company, which is what they did initially, but ended up handling almost exclusively personal issues for the CEO for last few months, which quite frankly strikes me as malfeasance since the CEO was paying for personal assistance needs with company funds. IMHO Some of the work performed should have been paid out of the CEO's pocket instead of the company's funds.
> This isn't worth seeing a lawyer about given the invoice amount.
It may be appropriate for small claims court, then.
> Some of the work performed should have been paid out of the CEO's pocket instead of the company's funds.
Not your friend's problem. That's between the CEO and the board. Maybe they want the CEO to have a personal assistant take care of minor but time-consuming personal matters.
Your friend had made a mistake. He should not have continued working without pay. There is nothing to be done here now. This CEO have an upper hand and your friend is not in a position to make any bargains. A take-away lesson - do not work without pay.
(just for a reference, what nationality is the CEO?
It is further questionable whether this person could even legally work as a contractor. Depending on the level of control the company exercised over how your friend performed their duties (and "admin stuff" sounds pretty hands-on to me), the government may actually consider them an employee. In that case the company is withholding wages, which would get them in a much bigger amount of trouble.
They had worked for this company for about about half a year now and every single itemized invoice, which should have been paid in X days, was paid over over 4 times X days late every time and the CEO was unresponsive to emails addressing this. The CEO was verbally abusive over the phone and in writing such as in emails and text messages. The contract stated that she would get $X amount for Y hours of work per week. After enough abuse they gave the company the notice and asked to be paid the already late invoice for the previous month and the current invoice submitted a day or two prior and due in less than a week. Now the company has presented a termination contract with all the sorts of reprehensible clauses we are discussing here and they are stating that the consideration is that they won't dispute the hours itemized on the last invoice. They refuse to pay the final invoice unless this person signs the termination contract. This isn't worth seeing a lawyer about given the invoice amount.
Furthermore, the person in question was hired to do administrative work for the company, which is what they did initially, but ended up handling almost exclusively personal issues for the CEO for last few months, which quite frankly strikes me as malfeasance since the CEO was paying for personal assistance needs with company funds. IMHO Some of the work performed should have been paid out of the CEO's pocket instead of the company's funds.