4 ms·

Having won a severance lawsuit in the past (Quebec jurisdiction though): Employment lawyers must be salivating at this point. Twitter is blatantly trying to a

Having won a severance lawsuit in the past (Quebec jurisdiction though): Employment lawyers must be salivating at this point. Twitter is blatantly trying to avoid paying severance by using the for cause, and are likely sloppy in doing it given management pressure. Gentle reminder to everyone that a big reason companies pay severance is so you dont sue them. If they offer you the minimum legal package, or worse they try to bullshit you into even less, you should be suing them. Theyre hoping you dont.

pc86 4y ago
Even California's labor laws are not going to be close to anything in Canada. And I don't know how many Twitter folks are remote, but if they're not in a very small minority of states, they're basically at the whims of management. At the end of the day, Twitter is under new management and it is within management's right to change to circumstances of your employment. If they start pushing night and weekend work, and you don't deliver, that alone isn't necessarily a violation of any law. You didn't perform, and it's completely possible that your termination is legally for cause, even in California. Employment law is very complex and honestly the situation will vary drastically even among similarly leveled folks on the same team fired at the same time. What kind of notification you're given, what kind of documentation there, previous reviews, etc. all play a role. I think it's shitty to try to squeeze out people like this but just because it's shitty doesn't mean it's illegal or that it's a good idea to sue over it.
- VHRanger 4y ago
  Everything you say is correct, but Twitter employees should all still: 1. Document everything off company devices 2. Consult an attorney, preferably specialized in employment law. Prepare for a lawsuit, itll be worth it if one is necessary.
- whatever1 4y ago
  You are missing a key point: scale of lay offs. Of course an employer can pull this off for a handful of employees, but not for a significant percentage of their workforce. If your claim was right, no employer would had paid severance for layoffs. They would just give a cause to every one laid off. Not that hard to come up with bs metrics.
shagie 4y ago
> Twitter is blatantly trying to avoid paying severance by using the for cause, and are likely sloppy in doing it given management pressure. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf > There is no legal requirement under California law that employers provide severance pay to an employee upon termination of employment. Employees should refer to their employer’s policy with respect to severance pay. Severance pay plans provided by an employer pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA), are subject to federal law. Contact the U.S. Department of Labor at www.dol.gov. In certain limited situations, California laws may apply. However, a thorough review of the facts is necessary before a determination can be made.
- rented_mule 4y ago
  But layoffs in California of 50 or more people in a 30-day period require the employer give 60-day notice to affected employees as a result of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act[0]. This is often handled by giving 60+ days of compensation as severance with ~0 notice. If they can get away with saying it's "for cause" then they can claim it's not a layoff and therefore not covered by the WARN Act. ---- [0]https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
  - shagie 4y ago
    You are describing garden leave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave ) which is often part of a the WARN layoff approach - but it is distinct and different than severance. It is completely possible to say "we are going to lay off these 50 people on January 3, 2023" but not actually have them leave (and instead require them to come into the office for the next four weeks to help with knowledge transfer). That fills the requirement for WARN - the employees know that they are getting laid off and have time to find a new job. In tech jobs, where IP is important, the garden leave approach is often taken because it limits the opportunity for an employee to engage in IP theft - but it is not required. When I was laid off from Netapp in 2009, I was informed I was going to be laid off on March 16th. My last day was May 15th, 2009 and then I had a severance package that was 3(?) weeks of pay for every year I had worked there. I could have left on my own accord in March if I wanted to, but my severance package was tied to me completing knowledge transfer for the next 60 days at which time the layoff would be complete.

pc86 4y ago

Even California's labor laws are not going to be close to anything in Canada. And I don't know how many Twitter folks are remote, but if they're not in a very small minority of states, they're basically at the whims of management. At the end of the day, Twitter is under new management and it is within management's right to change to circumstances of your employment. If they start pushing night and weekend work, and you don't deliver, that alone isn't necessarily a violation of any law. You didn't perform, and it's completely possible that your termination is legally for cause, even in California. Employment law is very complex and honestly the situation will vary drastically even among similarly leveled folks on the same team fired at the same time. What kind of notification you're given, what kind of documentation there, previous reviews, etc. all play a role. I think it's shitty to try to squeeze out people like this but just because it's shitty doesn't mean it's illegal or that it's a good idea to sue over it.

VHRanger 4y ago
Everything you say is correct, but Twitter employees should all still: 1. Document everything off company devices 2. Consult an attorney, preferably specialized in employment law. Prepare for a lawsuit, itll be worth it if one is necessary.
whatever1 4y ago
You are missing a key point: scale of lay offs. Of course an employer can pull this off for a handful of employees, but not for a significant percentage of their workforce. If your claim was right, no employer would had paid severance for layoffs. They would just give a cause to every one laid off. Not that hard to come up with bs metrics.

shagie 4y ago

> Twitter is blatantly trying to avoid paying severance by using the for cause, and are likely sloppy in doing it given management pressure. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf > There is no legal requirement under California law that employers provide severance pay to an employee upon termination of employment. Employees should refer to their employer’s policy with respect to severance pay. Severance pay plans provided by an employer pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA), are subject to federal law. Contact the U.S. Department of Labor at www.dol.gov. In certain limited situations, California laws may apply. However, a thorough review of the facts is necessary before a determination can be made.

rented_mule 4y ago
But layoffs in California of 50 or more people in a 30-day period require the employer give 60-day notice to affected employees as a result of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act[0]. This is often handled by giving 60+ days of compensation as severance with ~0 notice. If they can get away with saying it's "for cause" then they can claim it's not a layoff and therefore not covered by the WARN Act. ---- [0]https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
- shagie 4y ago
  You are describing garden leave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave ) which is often part of a the WARN layoff approach - but it is distinct and different than severance. It is completely possible to say "we are going to lay off these 50 people on January 3, 2023" but not actually have them leave (and instead require them to come into the office for the next four weeks to help with knowledge transfer). That fills the requirement for WARN - the employees know that they are getting laid off and have time to find a new job. In tech jobs, where IP is important, the garden leave approach is often taken because it limits the opportunity for an employee to engage in IP theft - but it is not required. When I was laid off from Netapp in 2009, I was informed I was going to be laid off on March 16th. My last day was May 15th, 2009 and then I had a severance package that was 3(?) weeks of pay for every year I had worked there. I could have left on my own accord in March if I wanted to, but my severance package was tied to me completing knowledge transfer for the next 60 days at which time the layoff would be complete.