- A 29-year-old Texas woman claims her former employer used a forged digital signature on a noncompete agreement to interfere with her new job.
- She says the prospective employer rescinded an offer with a 40% salary increase three days before her planned start date.
- Reddit users advised her to preserve the disputed PDF, metadata, emails and other evidence, and consult an employment attorney.
Texas Worker Claims Former Employer Forged Noncompete Agreement
A Reddit user identified as u/D3athStranding claims her former employer fraudulently forged her digital signature on a legal document to prevent her from starting a new job. The 29-year-old Texas woman said she had followed the required procedures when leaving her previous company, but her prospective employer rescinded its offer just days before she was scheduled to begin work.
The woman said she had worked for three years as a senior operations coordinator before accepting a position with another logistics company. According to her account, the new role offered a 40% salary increase. She submitted a two-week resignation notice to her former employer and said the transition toward her new position initially proceeded without problems.
Three days before her planned start date, however, she received a call informing her that the new company had decided to withdraw the offer. After investigating the reason, she said she learned that her former employer had sent the prospective employer’s legal team a cease-and-desist letter. The letter allegedly claimed that she was subject to a two-year noncompete agreement under Texas law.
She said the purported agreement would have prevented her from working for another company for two years, but maintained that she had never signed one. After requesting a copy from her former boss, she allegedly received a PDF containing an electronic signature said to have been applied three years earlier.
According to the Reddit post, the woman examined the PDF’s metadata and found that the file had actually been created and signed four days before she discovered it. She said the timing raised concerns that the document was created after she had resigned and then used to interfere with her new employment. She also alleged that the signature had been copied from old tax paperwork that, in her view, only her former boss would have been able to access.
Prospective Employer Declined to Restore Job Offer
The woman said she presented what she described as evidence of the alleged forgery to her prospective employer. Despite that evidence, she claimed the company refused to reinstate the offer because it wanted to avoid potential legal exposure connected to the disputed noncompete agreement.
Her account left her asking Reddit users what legal remedies might be available against her former employer over the alleged fraudulent contract and the loss of the new job opportunity. The Daily Dot could not independently verify the allegations, including whether the former employer forged the signature or sent the disputed document to the prospective employer. The report is based solely on u/D3athStranding’s description of events.
Reddit Users Recommend Preserving Digital Evidence
Several commenters urged the Reddit user to consult an employment attorney and preserve every document connected to the dispute. One commenter specifically recommended finding a lawyer experienced in litigation and retaining the original electronic files and metadata.
“Get an employment attorney who handles litigation. Save every single email, the original PDF, and the extracted metadata file right now on a personal drive,” they wrote.
Another commenter suggested discussing a spoliation letter with an attorney. Such a letter may ask parties to preserve potentially relevant evidence when litigation is anticipated. The commenter said the prospective employer should be told to retain the original materials it received from the former employer.
“When you get a lawyer, you may want to discuss with them about immediately sending a spoliation letter to the new employer advising them that they need to retain all the original documents submitted to them by the old employer due to pending litigation,” the commenter wrote.
The same commenter argued that the prospective employer could still become involved in a legal dispute, even though it rescinded the offer in an effort to avoid litigation. Whether any legal claim exists, and whether the disputed document was forged, remains unverified based on the available account.
Why This Matters
The allegations highlight the importance of preserving original digital documents, file metadata, emails and communications when an employment dispute involves an electronic signature or alleged contract. The reported timeline—particularly the claimed creation date of the PDF—could become relevant to any attorney reviewing the dispute, although the metadata and the alleged signature have not been independently authenticated.
The case also illustrates how a prospective employer may respond when presented with a claimed contractual restriction involving a former employee. In this account, the company chose to rescind the offer rather than risk potential legal exposure. The next steps described by commenters involve obtaining legal advice and ensuring that relevant records remain available for review.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Reddit user claim happened?
She claims her former employer created a false two-year noncompete agreement using a forged digital signature and sent it to her prospective employer, resulting in the withdrawal of a job offer that reportedly paid 40% more.
What evidence does she say she found?
She said the PDF’s metadata showed that the document was created and signed four days before she found it, despite the electronic signature allegedly being dated three years earlier. She also claimed the signature was taken from old tax paperwork.
What advice did Reddit users provide?
Commenters advised her to hire an employment attorney, preserve the original PDF and metadata, save all emails and consider discussing a spoliation letter with counsel. The allegations have not been independently verified.