4 ms·
Twitter Sued for Mass Layoffs by Musk Without Enough Notice
- CaliforniaKarl 4y agoFirst, I'm curious to know if, when counting employees, the WARN Act includes employees located outside of the United States, as I know that non-US Twitter employees are also included in this. I'm guessing yes, since California Labor Code 1400 (a) says… > “Covered establishment” means any industrial or commercial facility or part thereof that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons. Next, it's worth noting… > Liss-Riordan sued Tesla Inc. over similar claims in June when the electric-car maker headed by Musk laid off about 10% of its workforce. > > Tesla won a ruling from a federal judge in Austin forcing the workers in that case to pursue their claims in closed-door arbitration instead of in open court. I don't know if California's implementation of WARN would cause things to be different. Reading Labor Code sections 1400-1408, I couldn't tell one way or the other.
- leelin 4y agoTotally playing devil's advocate, does this loophole work in Twitter's defense? The WARN act requires large enough employers "provide at least 60 calendar days advance written notice of a plant closing and mass layoff affecting 50 or more employees at a single site of employment." Ok, so say everyone laid off clearly worked from home for the past 12 months. There was no single site of employment with 50 or more employees. It was just 1 or 2 employees cut from each of 3000 different sites of employment... their own homes? Obviously, this logic has little chance of working, but I welcome more clarity around whether every w-2 employee needs to be tied to a company office address, and how labor laws might need to change for remote-work situations.