But before she left, the company made her sign a non-disparagement agreement that banned her from working at any other branches of the company, or any of its many subsidiaries.

Without doubting pay inequities, I have to wonder about this particular claim. Why on earth would a company need an agreement to ban someone from working for it? All it has to do is refuse to hire her. And what does the restriction on employment have to do with disparagement? It sounds like a non-compete agreement, under which the employee would be banned from competing against the company or any of its subs or divisions (and, of course, from saying anything disparaging about the company, e.g., being a source for this article). But even if that were the case, such agreements cannot be “forced” on anyone. They are paid for by severance payments or settlements of discrimination claims. The background of this agreement seems central to the reliability of the source.

As I said, I don’t doubt that there is an issue here worth discussing, but I do wonder whether anything in this article is actually true.