You might have heard of Bryan Johnson. The longevity guru is the subject of a Netflix documentary, Don’t Die: The Man Who Wants to Live Forever, with that title being relatively self-explanatory. He has claimed to roll back his “biological age” by experimenting with sensory “therapies,” injections, supplements, and tracking devices. He also founded the Blueprint start-up to sell his findings, advice, and equipment. Naturally, Johnson has attracted a curious audience, whether they’re buying or simply watching.
Johnson has also attracted less positive attention and recently warned his followers that the New York Times was readying “a hit piece” about him. That article, “How Bryan Johnson, Who Wants to Live Forever, Sought Control via Confidentiality Agreements,” does not paint a flattering portrait of Johnson’s empire, which includes a workplace where protected speech might be illegally restricted.
Johnson does not dispute his hefty use of such agreements, and a Blueprint representative told the New York Post, “As a company under constant scrutiny, we use these agreements to establish clear boundaries and expectations so that trust isn’t left to chance.”
Yet within the NYT article, three former employees accuse him of weaponizing agreements for a few reasons: (1) To obscure Johnson’s full “biological age” data, which apparently does not truly show that he has “reversed 5.1 years” as claimed; (2) To maintain secrecy on the full results of Blueprint studies, which have allegedly caused harm to some participants following the diet recommendations; (3) See below.
The workplace-related allegations: This is a tough saga to parse since the agreements are not public, but the ex-employees allege that they were pressured to sign “overbroad,” 20-page-long documents that paved the way for unsavory behavior, including Johnson’s discussion of “sexual activities.” The ex-employees claim they were asked to agree that these subjects were not “unwelcome, offensive, humiliating, hostile, triggering, unprofessional or abusive” and that Johnson was also flirtatious with female employees.
Lawyer Matt Bruenig represents the workers whose allegations are featured in the NYT article and filed several ULP charges. He maintains that Johnson’s ex-employees “have a right to collectively publicize their working conditions, including by speaking to newspaper reporters.”
The muddled takeaways: First, it goes without saying that following in these (alleged) workplace footsteps is not prudent, but this case is worth watching, particularly in this time of federal policy upheaval.
The accusations against Johnson and those ULP charges will test the waters of Trump’s NLRB, that is, if the Board ever sits with a quorum again. Remember the recent reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox? Late last week, the D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, which has effectively pushed Wilcox out again. At this point, nobody knows when the Board could begin issuing rulings again.
Additionally, NLRB General Counsel William B. Cowen’s recent memo rescinded numerous Biden-era labor-friendly policies and could roll back wide-ranging restrictions on confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, at least as applied to severance. That could have a domino effect on confidentiality agreements in general, but there is no way to predict that happening. And considering how fast federal policies are changing, employers remain wise in waiting the chaos out.
FYI, Cowen might also be out of his NLRB “acting” gig soon if a Crystal Carey nomination is confirmed, which is likely. Again, it is a wild time in D.C.
