6 ms·

Funny... How's the conversation with the lawyer going to go? "Ok, so you're employed at-will. You are only talking about losing your unvested shares. Your empl

by gm 15y ago

Funny... How's the conversation with the lawyer going to go? "Ok, so you're employed at-will. You are only talking about losing your unvested shares. Your employer has the option to fire you and prevent you from vesting anymore shares, yet he is keeping you on board and wishes to renegotiate the matter of your remaining unvested shares.. Do I have that right?" "Yes. I want to remain employed, and I want to vest all my unvested shares" "You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, but I want to get all the shares I'm entitled to" "I realize that, bu you realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right?" "Yes, I guess they can." "You don't need a lawyer, you have no claim here at all, there is nothing I could do. The underlying assumption of your employer is that you have not been doing a good job. I'm pretty sure they have a paper trail to support their case. You will have to contest that, but first you need to get fired, otherwise there is no harm done. But once that happens the onus will be on you to prove that you were fired for an illegal reason, and that is a very high standard to meet. Very high." "Hmm, ok" "Now, let's see what 'at-will employment' means: 'The employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.'" "Oh shit." "Maybe you better negotiate for your remaining unvested shares. Some shares are better than no shares. You could be getting fired right now for all I know. You could bring me in to help you negotiate, but if I were them and my employee brought in a lawyer to negotiate, I would fire him on the spot rather than play a game I don't need to play." "Damn."

davidcuddeback 15y ago
> You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right? I'm not so sure that's true. Zynga is headquartered in San Francisco and is subject to California's employment laws. I may not be an expert on California's laws regarding at-will employment, but I sat on a jury for a wrongful termination lawsuit and "at-will" never came up. I would assume any lawyer worth his salt would bring that up in the company's defense if it was valid. Does anyone know what California's laws are regarding at-will employment? Edit: After Googling around for a bit, my impression is that California is an at-will employment state without many exceptions (basically can't fire someone out of discrimination).
- tptacek 15y ago
  Virtually every state but Montana is at-will (Montana requires "good cause" after probationary periods expire). In no state can you fire someone because of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability.
  - davidcuddeback 15y ago
    Any idea what the justification is for at-will employment? My visceral reaction is that it seems unfair. I like Montana's idea of a probationary period. But I'd like to understand the intellectual justification.
    - MBlume 15y ago
      The intellectual justification is probably something like: Hiring someone always represents a risk. You don't know if the person is going to succeed at the job you hired them for. You don't know if they're going to wind up a positive asset to the company. You need the option of firing them, and the possibility that you might wind up in a legal battle because you did so -- that even if you have an airtight case, you'll have to lawyer up and spend time in a court room -- is scary and could therefore have a chilling effect on hiring in the first place.
      - CaptainZapp 15y ago
        Well, For that we have trial periods (usually three month). After that employees can still be fired, but there's a notification period involved.
    - Androsynth 15y ago
      The justification is that you can fire people who are underperforming. France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. The problem is that the unemployment rate for young people is huge because there is no movement of labor capital. In general the entire economy gets gummed up from a lack of labor movement. Also, businesses have to subsidize the costs of retaining their worst workers.
rhizome 15y ago
I'm pretty sure they have a paper trail to support their case. And this is where I thank you for your time and go find a real lawyer.
rayiner 15y ago
First, "at will" doesn't mean "for any reason at all." Second, there is potential breach of the employment contract. Oracle lost a case around 2000 where they were forced to compensate someone wrongfully terminated for her unvested stock options. Other cases have been designed against the company on the grounds that firing someone just to screw them out of their options violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment contract. I think there is a colorable claim here. The law isn't as cut-and-dry as you're assuming.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Extortion is also illegal.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    Extortion usually involves the use of illegal force, which I don't see here. I agree it's shady and possibly something that will get them in legal hot water. However, I doubt it is a crime any more than lying about your age on Myspace is fraud. At best I think here we are talking about contract law.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      I don't know what the law says, but I don't think there's such a thing as illegal force. The extortion itself is illegal, not the force used.
    - ebrenes 15y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but reading on this, http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html#1 http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html#1, it's definitely not far fetched to consider what is being done by Zynga as extortion. They're demanding an act from the employees under threat of personal/property injury (being fired). They would have been much better off simply firing them if they were underperforming. Sometimes voicing out the thought process is all that's required to make something extorsion. Like if I say "I'm going to sue you if you don't X, Y or Z" can be considered extorsion. Whereas simply suing them isn't.

by gm 15y ago

davidcuddeback 15y ago

> You realize your employer can perfectly legally just fire you and you will not vest any shares at all, right? I'm not so sure that's true. Zynga is headquartered in San Francisco and is subject to California's employment laws. I may not be an expert on California's laws regarding at-will employment, but I sat on a jury for a wrongful termination lawsuit and "at-will" never came up. I would assume any lawyer worth his salt would bring that up in the company's defense if it was valid. Does anyone know what California's laws are regarding at-will employment? Edit: After Googling around for a bit, my impression is that California is an at-will employment state without many exceptions (basically can't fire someone out of discrimination).

tptacek 15y ago
Virtually every state but Montana is at-will (Montana requires "good cause" after probationary periods expire). In no state can you fire someone because of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability.
- davidcuddeback 15y ago
  Any idea what the justification is for at-will employment? My visceral reaction is that it seems unfair. I like Montana's idea of a probationary period. But I'd like to understand the intellectual justification.
  - MBlume 15y ago
    The intellectual justification is probably something like: Hiring someone always represents a risk. You don't know if the person is going to succeed at the job you hired them for. You don't know if they're going to wind up a positive asset to the company. You need the option of firing them, and the possibility that you might wind up in a legal battle because you did so -- that even if you have an airtight case, you'll have to lawyer up and spend time in a court room -- is scary and could therefore have a chilling effect on hiring in the first place.
    - CaptainZapp 15y ago
      Well, For that we have trial periods (usually three month). After that employees can still be fired, but there's a notification period involved.
  - Androsynth 15y ago
    The justification is that you can fire people who are underperforming. France has had huge problems recently because they have strong 'workers rights'. The problem is that the unemployment rate for young people is huge because there is no movement of labor capital. In general the entire economy gets gummed up from a lack of labor movement. Also, businesses have to subsidize the costs of retaining their worst workers.

rhizome 15y ago

I'm pretty sure they have a paper trail to support their case. And this is where I thank you for your time and go find a real lawyer.

rayiner 15y ago

First, "at will" doesn't mean "for any reason at all." Second, there is potential breach of the employment contract. Oracle lost a case around 2000 where they were forced to compensate someone wrongfully terminated for her unvested stock options. Other cases have been designed against the company on the grounds that firing someone just to screw them out of their options violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment contract. I think there is a colorable claim here. The law isn't as cut-and-dry as you're assuming.

bad_user 15y ago
Extortion is also illegal.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Extortion usually involves the use of illegal force, which I don't see here. I agree it's shady and possibly something that will get them in legal hot water. However, I doubt it is a crime any more than lying about your age on Myspace is fraud. At best I think here we are talking about contract law.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I don't know what the law says, but I don't think there's such a thing as illegal force. The extortion itself is illegal, not the force used.
  - ebrenes 15y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but reading on this, http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html#1 http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html#1, it's definitely not far fetched to consider what is being done by Zynga as extortion. They're demanding an act from the employees under threat of personal/property injury (being fired). They would have been much better off simply firing them if they were underperforming. Sometimes voicing out the thought process is all that's required to make something extorsion. Like if I say "I'm going to sue you if you don't X, Y or Z" can be considered extorsion. Whereas simply suing them isn't.