As an independent contractor—and now a legal blogger—I never expected that one of the most valuable case studies in employment law would come from my own experience. But after working with Verdant Strategies, what started as a promising professional relationship turned into a crash course in legal manipulation, misclassification, and negotiation pressure tactics.
Verdant Strategies made an offer.
I accepted in good faith.
Then came the sudden contract cancellation, an unfair public review, and a settlement offer that didn’t even scratch the surface of what I was owed.
Now, their legal team is using every trick in the book to push me into accepting a lowball deal.
Here’s what they’re doing—and how I’m pushing back with contract law, labor codes, and common sense.
1. The Lowball Anchor: $3,000 Is a Setup
Verdant Strategies offered me a $3,000 settlement—despite knowing that the damages exceed $36,000 (and rising).
Why?
It’s a classic negotiation trick: anchor low so that any increase seems generous. But even a “bumped-up” offer would still fall far short of what’s fair.
✅ How I’m Responding: I’ve countered with a fair market figure reflecting real damages—starting at $25,000. Anything less is not a negotiation; it’s a trap.
2. Fake Fraud Accusation to Intimidate Me
They accused me of fraud over an invoice—but provided zero proof. If they genuinely believed I committed fraud, they would have taken legal action, not sent a settlement agreement.
This isn’t about evidence. It’s about intimidation.
✅ My Response: I’ve demanded that Verdant Strategies either produce actual evidence or retract the claim in writing.
3. Confidentiality Clause Meant to Silence Me
Their proposed settlement includes strict confidentiality language that prevents me from discussing how they misclassified me.
They want to bury the truth—because they know the risk of DLSE and IRS investigations if others come forward.
✅ My Response: I’ve requested mutual confidentiality if they insist on silence—but I will not waive my right to report violations or write about misclassification law in general.
4. Buying a False Five-Star Review
They want me to change my UpWork review to five stars while keeping their negative review of me live—unless I pay to have it removed.
They’re gaming the system to appear perfect while my profile takes the hit.
✅ My Response: Any review changes must be mutual and honest. If not, I’m asking UpWork to intervene.
5. Switching Jurisdiction to Idaho: A Legal Shield
They want the agreement to be governed by Idaho law—because Idaho offers weaker labor protections and no misclassification penalties like California does.
This sneaky jurisdiction swap would eliminate my right to claim employee status or back wages.
✅ My Response: The original contract was executed in California. I’m demanding the release remain under California law. Anything else is a red flag.
6. Ambiguous Legal Language That Could Haunt Me
Their agreement includes vague language like “waives all known and unknown claims,” which could block me from pursuing future legal rights—even if new violations come to light.
It also has no clear payment deadline—meaning they could delay paying me indefinitely.
✅ My Response: I’m requiring clear legal language, a defined payment schedule (e.g., 10 business days), and a waiver that applies only to past claims—not future ones.
7. Artificial “Take It or Leave It” Deadlines
They gave me a short deadline to sign, hoping I’d rush and sign without fully reviewing it or consulting legal support.
But if their position were truly strong, they wouldn’t need to rush me.
✅ My Response: I’m not playing by their fake clock. Labor violations don’t expire just because they say so.
8. No Admission of Wrongdoing—Only My Silence
They want a full release of liability while explicitly refusing to admit any wrongdoing.
This means they can keep misclassifying other workers, and I’d be legally barred from even warning others.
✅ My Response: I’ve requested language that at least acknowledges the existence of a classification dispute—even if they don’t admit fault.
9. Shifting the Tax Burden Onto Me
If they categorize this settlement as self-employment income, I’ll owe significantly more in taxes—despite having been misclassified in the first place.
✅ My Response: I’m requesting that the payment be structured as a legal settlement, not as 1099 contractor income, and that Verdant assumes responsibility for any tax penalties due to misclassification.
—
Final Thoughts: Don’t Let Legal Tricks Silence You
When companies like Verdant Strategies employ legal pressure, bad-faith tactics, and manipulative settlements, they’re not just protecting their bottom line—they’re trying to silence accountability.
But I won’t be silent.
I’ve documented every step of this case—from the original offer to the abrupt termination and the public defamation that followed. And now I’m using that experience to stand up for myself and for others who’ve faced similar mistreatment.
If you’re a contractor, freelancer, or consultant:
Know your rights. Learn how to spot these tactics. And never settle for less than you’re owed.
If you’re a company:
Fair contracts, transparent processes, and lawful treatment aren’t optional—they’re the cost of doing ethical business.
Verdant Strategies may have miscalculated when they underestimated my legal literacy. Now, this experience will serve as a warning for others—and a case study in how to fight back when the deal turns dirty.
—
Want more case breakdowns like this? Subscribe to my blog and follow along as I continue to document real-world legal strategies for independent professionals. Because what happened to me shouldn’t happen to anyone else.
