6 ms·

Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/05/termination-letter.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the

by ziszis 9y ago

Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/05/termination-letter.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0... The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation: "Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20day period."

United857 9y ago
IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?
- jeeyoungk 9y ago
  I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.
- mikeryan 9y ago
  "Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.
  - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
    Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back. Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.
    - Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 9y ago
      I don't know. If the court thinks there was a deal between Uber and Levandowski where they "fired" him for the duration of the trial, only to hire him back as soon as possible, that could lead to contempt of court charges, I feel. But IANAL either.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Sounds like that, yeah. Standard procedure I guess?
- bllv7 9y ago
  Corporate way to force his hand to share any and all information requested, if indeed he still has information that he is inclined to share and if he does not comply he has a written letter showing Uber gave him a chance to "do the right thing." The ball is surely in his court now . . . if he complies to the letter he will still be employed by Uber - for how long, who knows. Uber's CYA letter
guelo 9y ago
This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.
- abvdasker 9y ago
  If the risk of testifying/cooperating with the investigation outweighs the massive financial incentive Levandowski had to cooperate then that risk must be pretty enormous...
  - draw_down 9y ago
    From what I have read elsewhere, he already has quite a lot of wealth. So "not going to the pokey" probably has a lot higher value than whatever millions he is leaving behind.

by ziszis 9y ago

United857 9y ago

IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?

jeeyoungk 9y ago
I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.
mikeryan 9y ago
"Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back. Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.
  - Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 9y ago
    I don't know. If the court thinks there was a deal between Uber and Levandowski where they "fired" him for the duration of the trial, only to hire him back as soon as possible, that could lead to contempt of court charges, I feel. But IANAL either.
euyyn 9y ago
Sounds like that, yeah. Standard procedure I guess?
bllv7 9y ago
Corporate way to force his hand to share any and all information requested, if indeed he still has information that he is inclined to share and if he does not comply he has a written letter showing Uber gave him a chance to "do the right thing." The ball is surely in his court now . . . if he complies to the letter he will still be employed by Uber - for how long, who knows. Uber's CYA letter

guelo 9y ago

This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.

abvdasker 9y ago
If the risk of testifying/cooperating with the investigation outweighs the massive financial incentive Levandowski had to cooperate then that risk must be pretty enormous...
- draw_down 9y ago
  From what I have read elsewhere, he already has quite a lot of wealth. So "not going to the pokey" probably has a lot higher value than whatever millions he is leaving behind.