Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/04/twitter-faces-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-mass-employee-layoffs-with-proper-legal-notice/

by thesecretceo • 4 years ago

234 278 4 years ago

techcrunch.com

cronix2• 4 years ago

Additional plaintiffs, Justine De Caires, Jessica Pan, and Grae Kindel said they were terminated on November 3 by being locked out of their accounts.
Under Twitter’s takeover deal terms, Musk had agreed to keep employee compensation and benefits the same. That means the laid-off employees should receive 60 days of salary and the cash value of the stock they were to receive within three months of their last date at the company, per law.

Have they actually been "terminated?" When does "employment" actually, legally end? This might be closer to "suspended with pay," unless they're no longer being paid which would be hard to know as this literally happened hours ago last night. It could be he's just locking them out, continuing to pay them for 60 days, and then will announce layoffs. I think this lawsuit could be a bit premature if you set emotions aside.

LanceH• 4 years ago

Like someone was in a rush to be lead plaintiff, or the representing law firm.

watwut2• 4 years ago

I am pretty sure law firms were on full alert and actively competing for possible plaintiffs from the moment Musk first time walked through door.

bpodgursky• 4 years ago

This is what always happens, and what will almost certainly happen here. They'll just give a few months severance.

This is so much noise over nothing.

anonymousab• 4 years ago

Musk had previously tried to avoid paying severance at Tesla, so it was absolutely not guaranteed to happen here.

baidifnaoxi3• 4 years ago

This is exactly it. Terminated technically means, no longer receiving compensation or benefits.

If Musk is basically saying “stop working” and we will pay you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other employment during this “notice period”

Edit: IANAL

nathanvanfleet• 4 years ago

It's almost as if Elon is being sued to ensure that he follows through with his obligations, since he's so consistently doesn't. Strange. It's like there is a purpose to the lawsuit.

rajeshp1986• 4 years ago

From what I hear from my personal connections at Twitter. They will be given 60 days pay so he is circumventing that California law.

jedberg• 4 years ago

It depends what you define at benefits. Is access to the cafe a benefit? Is access to the internal corporate directory a benefit?

woodruffw2• 4 years ago

If Musk is basically saying “stop working” and we will pay you for the next 60 days (and even beyond), then this is completely legal as long as they are not restricted from seeking other employment during this “notice period”

AFAICT, nobody was told to "stop working" today. They were all laid off, meaning terminated, no longer compensated, etc.

rich_sasha• 4 years ago

Nitpick, but this kind of "paid but not working", also known as Garden Leave in the UK at least, often needs to be specified in the contract. Otherwise the employee could argue in some jurisdictions that this is demeaning behaviour etc.

No idea about the actual jurisdiction in question...

emedchill• 4 years ago

According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...

bourgeoismedia• 4 years ago

So 3 months of gardening leave with benefits and a final Feb 1 RSU vest. That seems completely fair and reasonable if it's accurate.

User23• 4 years ago

Good luck even showing actual damages then. Employment lawsuits from line employees really aren’t that scary to big companies. The case law in California at least is quite clear. I’m not a lawyer, but the source for this information is a lawyer I conferred with. He said legally I had a solid case but he wasn’t interested in 30% of three months compensation.

Actual damages are practically capped around 3 months on the theory that you should be able to find a new job in that timeframe. And if you don’t, then that’s evidence you’re not actually qualified qualified and the termination wasn’t wrongful! And if Twitter is effectively paying 60 day’s severance then it’s even harder to show actual damages.

Now theoretically punitive damages are a possibility. I assume that’s what this lawsuit is hinging on, raising the however unlikely possibility that a jury might vote for punitive damages. That almost certainly won’t happen though absent gross malfeasance: think outright full blown macroaggression racism or sexism. Otherwise, well privileged tech nerds like tweeps just aren’t very likely to get a jury all riled.

kenjackson3• 4 years ago

If that's the case, I bet the Twitter employees who still have a job, wish they got laid off. 60 days of pay is better than just resigning, which is what I'm sure I would do.

maeln• 4 years ago

It is an interesting case. In France, the case was already judged and having your means of work (example: access to your professional email) cut off before the end of your contract (which include the required advance notice) is considered unlawful firing. The same goes if you are put in the "placard doré", meaning you are not given any work to do.

Of course, the laws in France favor the worker a lot more than the U.S so it will be interesting what the result of the lawsuit will be.

throw_m239339• 4 years ago

I mean in France, "at will" employment is illegal at first place.

wongarsu• 4 years ago

But those laws are about employers trying to force people to quit so they don't have to fire them. This case feels more equivalent to firing someone and putting them on paid leave during the mandatory notice period. Which seems like a common practice in some industries to prevent revenge acts from those who are let go.

czbond3• 4 years ago

In the U.S. for security purposes - you definitely cut off email access before actual termination. Employee actions are unpredictable, and poses a legal & liability risk to the company.

Not a lawyer, but employees are only required email access for all if company policy say they must. Usually the policies say access can be removed at any time for any purpose the company management desires, because they are, after all, the managements systems to operate and provide.

quantified• 4 years ago

From [https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/read-blunt-twitter-email-...], it says that the actual termination date is Feb 2 and they keep all compnand benefits until then. They just can't access company systems or violate the code of conduct. Seems like they're not actually laid off yet?

pbreit2• 4 years ago

Does anyone know what WARN actually requires? If they are copensated for 60 days, does that suffice?

Tangurena28• 4 years ago

Yes.

An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...

He learned his lesson from a similar large scale layoff at Tesla. The lawyers in this case were the same lawyers in the previous case.

jleyank2• 4 years ago

All of my layoffs had post termination pay to satisfy federal and state law. HR stressed that we were on salary (without working) during the termination period and that leaving would negate benefits. Once this period ended, there were usual benefits like n weeks per year of employment. Blatantly ignoring the rules just invites lawsuits and weakens em’s position.

Sux how rules and established norms of behaviour restrict one’s actions.

angrydev• 4 years ago

Just curious which state was that where they had to give severance? I'm in a US state that does not require anything after termination.

jleyank2• 4 years ago

Mass and Kansas. I can’t say whether the state required additional payments above what’s legally required (60 day notice) but they needed to give something to get people to sign things like termination agreements and non disclosures. Having just been laid off, they weren’t all that willing to be nice and all that.

If you want to be a jerk, that influences future hiring chances both ways. Most companies expect to need to hire at some point in the future.

roflyear• 4 years ago

There is the WARN act which is a federal law. But that only applies to larger companies and mass layoffs.

coredog642• 4 years ago

WARN is Federal, but for you to see benefits, the layoff has to meet strict requirements. It’s things like closing an entire site, laying off 33% of employees, 500+ employees, etc.

Meekro• 4 years ago

The leaked termination notices are indicating that the fired employees will get post termination pay. See, for example, https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1588586560986882048/photo...

awb4• 4 years ago

it’s seeking a range of relief, including compensatory damages (including wages owed), as well as declaratory relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, plus other attorneys’ fees and costs.

So, the penalty is paying workers the wages they would have been paid anyway under proper notice, plus interest? So for basically ~5-8% more Musk gets to terminate everyone today instead of in 60 days.

e402• 4 years ago

The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.

klooney• 4 years ago

Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew and just didn't care.

zimpenfish• 4 years ago

I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's - desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making sure their objections are written down just in case, and knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.

keneda72• 4 years ago

I think he did in this case. From a comment by Emedchill near the top of the comments:

According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...

So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits until Feb 2th

Turing_Machine4• 4 years ago

Or maybe he did, and decided that getting them out the door now was worth the potential costs from the lawsuit?

If, as some others have said, he's actually paying them for the 60 days, I don't think a judge or jury is going to be very sympathetic.

"So, your boss basically told you to take 60 days off with pay?"

nomel3• 4 years ago

he didn't consult a proper lawyer

Do you have any evidence for this?

MBCook• 4 years ago

No. There are also fines to the state/federal government. I saw one number (CA?) of $500/person/day. Don’t know if that was it or minimum or what.

awb4• 4 years ago

3,700 employees @ $500/day would be $1.85M / day. Ouch.

keneda72• 4 years ago

See the letter in the article below.

https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...

cma2• 4 years ago

The in-office requirement seems like clearly constructive dismissal given this:

"2-day a week office requirement = 20% voluntary departures" "Day-0...sharpen your blades boys!"

https://fortune.com/2022/10/06/elon-musk-jason-calacanis-ret...

An office requirement because you think it helps the culture is one thing; an office requirement simply because you know the attrition it will cause so you "sharpen your blades"/salivate over the prospect is very different. Twitter encouraged employees to move out of state far away from offices, etc.

gnicholas2• 4 years ago

I don't think that's how constructive dismissal works (I am a former lawyer, but not an employment law specialist). I believe it is based on objective factors, not subjective intent or awareness of the likely outcome.

If an employer says "you have to come back into the office 2x weekly" that is different from "you have to commute to our new office, located 60 miles away". The latter would be constructive dismissal because it is new, unexpected, and a material challenge for many employees. Ditto if they removed half the bathrooms, didn't provide enough office space for the workers, cut the parking lot in half, etc.

But asking employees to resume doing something that they were willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as constructive dismissal.

cma2• 4 years ago

But asking employees to resume doing something that they were willing to do when they first joined the company (assuming they joined pre-pandemic) would be difficult to characterize as constructive dismissal.

They encouraged people to move far away from the office, where ever they wanted, and then are doing this explicitly for the attrition side-effect, not because they need the people in the office.

NoblePublius• 4 years ago

There is no WARN act violation if the employee receives 60 days of severance and some consideration for vesting. Is there any evidence that didn’t happen?

voxl• 4 years ago

Is the lawsuit itself not evidence? Do you think employees are sitting there thinking "let's waste money and time on a lawsuit that will have no impact." There must have been some good faith believe that Musk had no intention of providing severance. Is that really so hard to believe from the outside?

nathanaldensr• 4 years ago

No, the lawsuit is not evidence. In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't prove there is merit at all.

cronix2• 4 years ago

Until, and if, it's heard by a court, a lawsuit is just a one sided opinion.

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

There is really no point arguing over beliefs, it's easier to settle things with facts/data. "humans are logical and act rationally" has never been a good apriori.

kcplate• 4 years ago

The employees who lawyered up before seeing any official termination documentation are probably on the hook for any legal fees incurred so far. Now that it appears that an appropriate work suspension and notice of termination date (essentially severance) was granted, its likely that there wont be many offers from lawyers to act on contingency fees.

mikestew3• 4 years ago

Can we please fix the title? Not only is it incomplete and makes no sense, it also got butchered such that it is now wrong. Original:

"Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs without proper legal notice"

At least replace the "with" with "without".

rickstanley2• 4 years ago

The original title is 11 characters too long for submission.

mikestew3• 4 years ago

I didn't ask for the original title, I asked that the title be fixed. As an example, removing "mass employee" gets under the limit and leaves a title that's a lot more clear than what's up there now. "Twitter faces lawsuit..." gets you there, several ways of shortening without losing much meaning.

HN guidelines ask that the original be used. But if original is too long, we should at least try to leave something that makes sense and doesn't incorrectly flip Boolean flags.

themanmaran• 4 years ago

"Twitter faces a̶ class action lawsuit over mass e̶m̶p̶l̶o̶y̶e̶e̶ layoffs without proper legal notice"

Shaved off exactly 11 characters (including spaces).

blindriver• 4 years ago

It's also wrong. According to the email they received, they are getting paid until Feb 2023, plus one vest of their RSUs from what I heard. There is no legal basis for a lawsuit.

cmeacham98• 4 years ago

Source? Do you work for Twitter? I haven't seen this claim anywhere.

Edit: source is https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...

93po2• 4 years ago

There's no realistic basis for a lawsuit. However that won't stop journalists from using language like "faces" lawsuit which means literally nothing has happened but we're going to speculate to generate clickbait.

chevman• 4 years ago

I highly doubt HR at Twitter is unaware of the laws here and not giving 60 days notice as part of the exit packages.

This is basic stuff easily remedied by corrected exit package details if it did in fact happen.

mrits• 4 years ago

It makes no sense. Can we apply this to all the other layoffs and probably upcoming layoffs in the coming weeks from big tech? How is Twitter the only company guilty of this?

pwinnski4• 4 years ago

Most companies approach mass layoffs pretty carefully, announcing the terms up-front, as evidences by the Stripe and Lyft examples this week. Twitter is the only company doing mass layoffs that's owned by Musk, to answer your last question.

trynewideas• 4 years ago

Are we sure HR wasn't laid off? The article notes Twitter didn't respond to a request for comment because the comms staff was laid off.

ink_13• 4 years ago

Another classic Musk maneuver. Tesla (in)famously doesn't have a PR department.

rtkwe3• 4 years ago

It's also been 2 full days since one of the people in the suit received their termination information though so I would bet they know what Twitter's plan was for at least their termination. If not why didn't they have the info?

_jal2• 4 years ago

I'm quite certain they're aware of the law. I also know Musk has violated it before.

You seem to be implying that's irrational behavior, and therefore won't happen.

I agree that it is irrational.

erehweb• 4 years ago

Lots of people saying "Why is this lawsuit needed? Musk / Twitter HR would obviously comply with the law". Bear in mind that Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to (e.g. honoring the agreement to purchase Twitter).

illuminerdy3• 4 years ago

"Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to..."

In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've ever known.

In other words, that's how the world generally works.

WoahNoun4• 4 years ago

Musk was openly antagonistic to an agreement he signed that waved all due diligence. In my business experience, most entities that sign a contract try to honor that contract. Musk does not. He tries to use his money and power to find every loophole in every business deal. It's shady, it's deceptive, and it's not conducive to long-term success.

jonathankoren• 4 years ago

In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've ever known.

If your friends, family, and colleagues are routinely getting into legal trouble, you need some better friends, family, and colleagues.

Of course, maybe you're part of The Family(tm), in which case... say no more.

afavour• 4 years ago

Your friends, family members and neighbors typically aren’t going to have the power to fuck over thousands of former employees though. Great power comes great responsibility and all that.

marcinzm• 4 years ago

In other words, that's how the world generally works.

And suing people for it is also how the world works.

kenjackson3• 4 years ago

Sounds like a lovely family.

MichaelCollins• 4 years ago

"Everybody else commits these crimes, or would if they could" is a common coping belief expressed by criminals. But it isn't true.

watwut2• 4 years ago

I have to say, I have much better family and friends.

dragontamer3• 4 years ago

We only have to look at the Stripe layoffs (also happening this past week) to see that you're wrong.

throwawaysleep• 4 years ago

And they get sued/fined/jailed for doing it if caught. Like he is currently being.

barneygale• 4 years ago

Such cynical views of mankind should not be tolerated in the tech industry.

_jal2• 4 years ago

In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician...

If you mean that in the sense that everyone, no matter how powerful, needs to be subject to oversight, I agree with you.

If instead you mean that in the schoolyard, "But Johnny was cussing too!" sense, well, if that's supposed to be a defense, it isn't. All I can suggest is be a smarter criminal.

_chap• 4 years ago

The Boring Company didn't install a legal septic system for the families living at their HQ in Texas. And it goes downhill from there: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-15/elon-musk...

55555• 4 years ago

They didn't have enough advance notice? Didn't they have like 6 months of notice? Everyone knew that Elon was planning on doing mass layoffs after buying Twitter, a process which started many months ago.

mjmsmith• 4 years ago

IANAL, but "everyone knew" probably doesn't constitute "proper legal notice".

nomel3• 4 years ago

Rumors and assumptions don't count as notice, in the eyes of the law.

klyrs• 4 years ago

Just like Trump can't declassify documents with his mind, there are proper procedures to be followed. Each individual needs to be given notice. Six months ago, he didn't have the ability to make that decision and it wasn't a sure thing and he spent much of the meantime trying to wriggle out of the deal.

jefftk• 4 years ago

Among other issues with this view, Musk repeatedly said the deal was off and only closed after Twitter sued.

insane_dreamer• 4 years ago

the leaked email to a Twitter employee (if true) says that they are not actually being terminated, but rather suspended with pay. So it seems that Musk is in fact staying within legal bounds (which means the lawsuit won't go anywhere).

Today is your last working day at the company, however, you will remain employed by Twitter and will receive compensation and benefits through your separation date of February 2, 2023.

PragmaticPulp• 4 years ago

Yes, it's clear that the lawyers were involved and they're doing this within the rules.

Elon is doing a lot of ill-advised things with his Twitter transition, but this armchair lawyering doesn't even take the basic facts into account.

anon291• 4 years ago

I mean realistically this just makes it worse for them should they try to seek external employment.

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

Knowing the possible shitstorm it would cause, Twitter upper management sold the company anyway. Not that they care, they got fabulously wealthy off the deal.

WoahNoun4• 4 years ago

Not selling the at the price he offered would have been massively violating their fiduciary duty. Twitter stock would probably be worth like $20-30 given the current market versus the $54 offered.

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

There is a lot of confusion with people offering their own opinions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-direct...

It seems the board tried to block it at first.

Also -

"A Saudi prince who is among Twitter’s major shareholders scoffed at Musk’s offer in a Thursday tweet. Al Waleed bin Talal said he would reject Musk’s overtures because he didn’t believe $43 billion “comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects."

shrikant• 4 years ago

Shareholders were being offered a very nice premium on the stock price, so Twitter upper management would have been awash in shareholder lawsuits if they'd rejected the deal.

Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made a serious offer.

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

I'm curious if this (lawsuits) has happened before.

blitzar• 4 years ago

Essentially, the Twitter board was snookered once Musk made a serious offer and the market tanked making the premium >100%.

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

I'm curious to see if such lawsuits have succeeded in the past - in similar situations.

r00fus• 4 years ago

You do realize that if they didn't accept the offer, C-suite would be pursued by shareholder lawsuit holding them liable for lost valuation?

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

Maybe someone who is an expert can comment on this. It seems the board tried to block it at first.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-direct...

Also -

readingnews• 4 years ago

Honestly, what? Every job I have had in IT/programming/universities/heavy industry have been "at will". We can fire you at any time for any reason.

Is silicon valley not like this? What is this "advanced notice"?? No, really, I am not taking sides, but is this how it works at some places? I have been working for several decades, I have _never_ heard of this.

Macha2• 4 years ago

California has 60 days.

Most European countries have more

trap_goes_hot7• 4 years ago

I wasn't aware of the 60 days in CA. Link? Thanks!

quux• 4 years ago

New York as well

themadturk2• 4 years ago

Washington, too.

https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN

coredog642• 4 years ago

Federal WARN Act requires 60 days. States like CA and NY have additional constraints, but it’s typically more strict definitions of what constitutes a mass layoff (total count, number of employees at a single site) or who is covered. Haven’t checked in a while, but ISTR NY, for example, has a lower employer size threshold than Federal law.

sn41• 4 years ago

In most European countries, there are notice periods. Germany has pretty stringent laws regarding this.

chris11• 4 years ago

Federal and California WARN acts require advance notification for mass layoffs. It's still "at will", but more regulations come into play if a lot of people lose their jobs.

philliphaydon• 4 years ago

When companies plan to make a portion of a company redundant they typically need to annouce their intentions in advance, depending on the country. As is the case of this lawsuit.

This is different to an employee being let go. This isn't a bunch of people being fired, this is retrenchment due to reorganization.

falcolas2• 4 years ago

California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law.

“an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order”

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html

notyourwork2• 4 years ago

Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire you?

edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.

jjmorrison2• 4 years ago

Notice can be given in the form of severance.

rco87866• 4 years ago

Turns out employment laws are a thing and employees have some rights. Yes.

nanidin2• 4 years ago

The intent of the law is to allow time to prepare for macro level effects in case of a mass layoff. This gives the government time to spin up unemployment resources and job transition programs, in theory.

bedast4• 4 years ago

Musk is openly antagonistic to any kind of regulation and regulatory bodies. This is all a game to him. Any fines he faces are the price of having fun, to him. It's why whether Twitter succeeds or fails is a moot point. He doesn't actually care about Twitter. It's a toy. It's an RC plane he's flying around, right now, and it's just a matter of time before he intentionally aims it into the ground to see how big of an explosion he can make.

atomicone2• 4 years ago

wouldn't that damage his reputation as a credible CEO? Not sure if a billionaire would care, but still, he holds the office of the CEO in a few companies.

notyourwork2• 4 years ago

Why do you need credibility when you own the company? This isn't a public trading company where share holders can vote you out.

Sohcahtoa82• 4 years ago

wouldn't that damage his reputation as a credible CEO?

Elon Musk? A credible CEO?

And here I was thinking shitposting wasn't allowed on HN.

bedast4• 4 years ago

No. Because he's a multibillionaire. The scale of his wealth means he doesn't have to care what people think. He can maintain his lifestyle and continue to make various life and business choices despite losing $44b because, overall, it's not that much compared to his overall wealth.

Maybe no one will want to hire him as CEO, if that's what you're referring to. But he can just buy another company if he wants to be CEO of it.

Nifty3929• 4 years ago

He has not done this with his other large businesses. He has in fact done the opposite, raising them from nothing to hugely successful companies that are also great for humanity. I'm no fanboy - I just call them like I see them.

You'll probably mention a few side-projects of his that haven't done much - but he hasn't flown them into the ground either. They're just interesting experiments.

bedast4• 4 years ago

Those may be more passion projects for him. But he's also violated labor law, safety regulations, committed SEC violations, and so on.

But if you want history of using his money for extreme trolling, just look at the whole Hyperloop thing, where he admitted it was a troll.

He's had a lot of disdain for Twitter in the past. He's laughed at people he's kicked out already. The Twitter story is one giant troll. If, somehow, it manages to get any kind of success, he wins. If it fails, he writes it off and moves on to the next sociopathic experience.

legohead2• 4 years ago

I considered this purchase a miscalculation on his part. After he bought 9% of twitter, he wanted to do some market manipulation like with Tesla. Only he got burned last time, so he attempted to do it legit with his "offer". He never expected them to actually accept. And why he tried so hard to back out.

However, now that it's done, I don't doubt his earnest or abilities to drive twitter forward. In any case it will be very interesting to watch.

93po2• 4 years ago

There is zero evidence for literally anything you're saying and your accusations are completely baseless.

988747• 4 years ago

If he wanted to manipulate market then just the rumor about the purchase would send stocks higher. In fact, after his announcement on April 14th, Twitter rose 7.5% on the next session (18th). No need to actually sign the deal to make few hundred millions of dollars.

On the other hand, how would he cash out his gamble? You cannot announce that you want to buy 100% of the company stocks, and then start selling off the 9% that you already have, that would be a dead giveaway that the offer is not serious.

bedast4• 4 years ago

He memed the price. How is that a miscalculation? Everything he's doing with Twitter is going as planned.

dmix• 4 years ago

Here is the caselaw for the last time Tesla got sued under WARN Act:

https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Cou...

It gives a good summary of what the law is about

It eventually got settled via arbitration:

https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/tesla-workers-warn-act-...

soumyadeb• 4 years ago

Is Stripe/Lyft exempted from this?

pwinnski4• 4 years ago

As the recent announcements showed, they're including at least eight weeks of pay, so that complies with the CA-WARN law in question.

nemo44x2• 4 years ago

It's so funny to see this like it's actually serious. There's a reason why whenever you see big layoffs you see that everyone impacted by it is granted severance of a few months pay, etc.

People act like Twitter is the first company to do layoffs. This is super common and has happened to numerous tech companies in the last month. But of course, Space Man Bad.

pessimizer5• 4 years ago

And it's especially common once somebody new takes over. And in this case, plenty of Twitter was openly hostile to Musk. That they're upset that they won't be retained to help him implement an agenda that they disapprove of is an entirely cynical ploy.

Sucks to lose your job because management changed to someone you can't live with, but it would also suck to work a job with management you can't live with.

mathverse• 4 years ago

Musk reminds me everyday of a russian/Eastern European oligarch. He is a thug.

RONROC• 4 years ago

The "move fast and break things" crowd cries foul when they happen to be the thing that gets broke.

Funny how that works.

rco87866• 4 years ago

My take is that this was always part of the plan.

Whatever Elon settles the suit for will be far less $ than actual severance would have been.

bitcharmer• 4 years ago

The amount of commenters here claiming putting people on gardening leave being illegal is absolutely astonishing.

nemo44x2• 4 years ago

Everyone is employed until February 2nd. They receive full pay + benefits but don’t have to work. This was in the termination email that fired employees received.

daveoc64• 4 years ago

It will be interesting to see how they approach these layoffs in countries like the UK or most of the EU, where you can't just fire people for no reason.

I have seen some reports of Twitter employees in the UK being told they've been laid off, but that's simply not legal in te UK.

For a company the size of Twitter, a process must be followed:

https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation

The company can be forced to reinstate the employee if the company has been found to have ignored the law.

Delaying the layoff until January doesn't remove the legal obligations Twitter has.

jjmorrison2• 4 years ago

This is not how the WARN act works. Companies do not need to give a 60 day warning to layoff employees. They can instead pay out 60 days of severance. Which is what everyone always does since letting employees hang out at the office for 2 months after a layoff would be super weird.

deathanatos2• 4 years ago

The complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-a...

crusty• 4 years ago

I wish I had confidence that there were Fediverse players ready to capitalize on this poo-show.

prepend• 4 years ago

How much severance did they pay to employees? The WARN act maximum penalty is 60 days salary and benefits [0]. So if you’re giving out severance packages of more than two months you can ignore the WARN act as you’re paying the same or more than the penalty. And I assume that any deference agreement would involve not suing due to WARN act violations.

[0] https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp

Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

Related Stories