u/Ok-Dragonfly-7917

After reading an attorney’s article about NDAs, non-disparagement agreements, and recent NLRB decisions, I keep coming back to what feels like an imbalance.

If an employee or volunteer speaks out about how they were treated or raises concerns about how animals in an organization’s care are being treated they can end up facing lawsuits, legal threats, or claims that they violated an NDA or non-disparagement agreement.

At the same time, organizations often seem able to publicly criticize or discredit former employees or volunteers with far fewer consequences.

Another question I have is: how are these lawsuits being funded? Litigation is incredibly expensive. If a nonprofit is bringing multiple lawsuits, should there be more transparency about where the money is coming from and whether donor funds are being used for litigation instead of the organization’s mission?

Where do you think the balance should be between protecting an organization’s reputation and protecting someone’s ability to speak about their own experiences or raise concerns about animal welfare? And should nonprofits be more transparent about how legal actions are financed?

After reading an attorney’s article about NDAs, non-disparagement agreements, and recent NLRB decisions, I keep coming back to what feels like an imbalance.

If an employee or volunteer speaks out about how they were treated or raises concerns about how animals in an organization’s care are being treated they can end up facing lawsuits, legal threats, or claims that they violated an NDA or non-disparagement agreement.

At the same time, organizations often seem able to publicly criticize or discredit former employees or volunteers with far fewer consequences.

Another question I have is: how are these lawsuits being funded? Litigation is incredibly expensive. If a nonprofit is bringing multiple lawsuits, should there be more transparency about where the money is coming from and whether donor funds are being used for litigation instead of the organization’s mission?

Where do you think the balance should be between protecting an organization’s reputation and protecting someone’s ability to speak about their own experiences or raise concerns about animal welfare? And should nonprofits be more transparent about how legal actions are financed?

**No Dogs Left Behind has relocated again. I’m trying to understand why this organization continues to move and why concerns raised over the years don’t seem to result in meaningful oversight.**
From what I’ve seen, the organization has operated from multiple locations and has been involved in various legal disputes and controversies. There have also been public discussions and allegations regarding animal care, employment practices, NDAs, cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, and veterinary outcomes. If you’re interested, I encourage you to review publicly available court filings, regulatory records, and news coverage and draw your own conclusions.
My opinion is that organizations involved in animal rescue should be transparent, accountable, and subject to appropriate oversight. If there are recurring concerns, I believe they deserve careful review by the relevant authorities.

Has anyone else followed this organization’s history or know what oversight exists when an animal rescue repeatedly relocates?