40 ms·

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

234 points by thesecretceo 4y ago

cronix 4y 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 4y ago
  Like someone was in a rush to be lead plaintiff, or the representing law firm.
  - watwut 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    Musk had previously tried to avoid paying severance at Tesla, so it was absolutely not guaranteed to happen here.
- baidifnaoxi 4y 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 4y 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.
    - pb7 4y ago
      That's not how lawsuits work. You don't sue someone for something they might do with zero indication that they will. When you buy a company headquartered in California and elect to layoff half of it, you probably know your legal obligations.
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do. Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
        spoils19 4y ago
        pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.
        4y ago
- emedchill 4y 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-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
  - bourgeoismedia 4y 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.
    - nullc 4y ago
      It'll be interesting to see if any of them are bold enough to argue that their ability to exert influence over the public via their role at twitter was a material part of their compensation.
      - sulam 4y ago
        You apparently have a very negative view of people who work at Twitter. I worked there for 4.5 years and literally no one I worked with or knew of there would ever make such an argument. The only people who even really have a claim to such an argument got last week and we haven't heard a thing from them, although I'm anticipating some sort of lawsuit having to be filed to recover the real USD compensation owed to them for their summary firing "for cause."
        nullc 4y ago
        The posted email, linked two posts up stated that "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 [90 days out]". Unless they want to claim some side effect of working is part of the employee's compensation this lawsuit looks baseless enough to be an abuse of process.
      - chitowneats 4y ago
- maeln 4y 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 4y ago
    I mean in France, "at will" employment is illegal at first place.
    - spoils19 4y ago
      Horrible for the free market, imo.
      - TheRealPomax 4y ago
        Probably not, since it encourages companies to actually invest in people that they can't just fire at will. Society comes out on top, and business is kept accountable for how they treat human beings. The free market with at will employment is a race to the bottom. France's model is more of a steady march to the top.
        filoleg 4y ago
        > France's model is more of a steady march to the top Eagerly awaiting for France to have their own equivalents (in terms of success and worldwide influence) of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. As well as for their devs to be paid even remotely close to what they can get paid in the US. From what I am seeing, even "the year of Linux on desktop" is more likely to happen than that. Which doesn't inspire much confidence.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
- quantified 4y ago
  From [https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/read-blunt-twitter-email-telling-142536755.html 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?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pbreit 4y ago
  Does anyone know what WARN actually requires? If they are copensated for 60 days, does that suffice?
  - Tangurena2 4y 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_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 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.
    - pbreit 4y ago
      So does that just mean they need to be paid for 60 days (which they are)?
jleyank 4y 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 4y 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.
  - jleyank 4y 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 4y ago
    There is the WARN act which is a federal law. But that only applies to larger companies and mass layoffs.
  - coredog64 4y 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 4y 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/1 https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1588586560986882048/photo...
awb 4y 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.
- e40 4y ago
  The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.
  - klooney 4y ago
    Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew and just didn't care.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zimpenfish 4y 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.
  - keneda7 4y 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-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 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_Machine 4y 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?"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- notafraudster 4y ago
  Among people I know at Twitter who got laid off, they have 60 days of notice during which they don't need to work but still get paid + severance commensurate with their tenure (30+ days). All of them think this whole process is an absolute fucking shitshow and the company is going to swirl the toilet bowl, but I don't think any feel as though their legal rights were violated.
cma 4y 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-return-to-office-gentlemens-layoffs-twitter/ 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.
- gnicholas 4y 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.
  - cma 4y 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.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      Ah, I wasn't aware of that. So they said that people could be remote forever? Was this a company-wide policy, or just certain teams?
NoblePublius 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - cronix 4y ago
    Until, and if, it's heard by a court, a lawsuit is just a one sided opinion.
  - trap_goes_hot 4y 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 4y 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.
mikestew 4y 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".
- rickstanley 4y ago
  The original title is 11 characters too long for submission.
  - mikestew 4y 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.
    - deathanatos 4y ago
      Agree w/ your point, and your suggested title. Looking at the slug, it seems like TFA might have originally butchered, and later changed the title, too.
    - rickstanley 4y ago
      My mistake, I read you comment erroneously. Sorry.
      - mikestew 4y ago
        No worries, hopefully someone benefits from the discussion as to how and why HN titles sometimes end up the way they do.
  - themanmaran 4y ago
chevman 4y 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 4y 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?
  - pwinnski 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    Another classic Musk maneuver. Tesla (in)famously doesn't have a PR department.
    - Tangurena2 4y ago
      His PR department is his personal Twitter account.
- rtkwe 4y 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?
erehweb 4y 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).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- illuminerdy 4y 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.
  - WoahNoun 4y 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.
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      He definitely has a vibe of seeming to think he's above the law, IMHO. TBF, he is in most cases, just not that particular one.
    - emkoemko 4y ago
      remember how he defrauded the US government to get subsidies for Tesla? i don't even understand after finding this out how he does not get in trouble?
  - jonathankoren 4y 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.
55555 4y 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.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Among other issues with this view, Musk repeatedly said the deal was off and only closed after Twitter sued.
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  IANAL, but "everyone knew" probably doesn't constitute "proper legal notice".
- nomel 4y ago
  Rumors and assumptions don't count as notice, in the eyes of the law.
- klyrs 4y 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.
insane_dreamer 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  I mean realistically this just makes it worse for them should they try to seek external employment.
trap_goes_hot 4y 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.
- WoahNoun 4y 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_hot 4y ago
    There is a lot of confusion with people offering their own opinions. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-directors-adopt-poison-pill-defense-against-musk-takeover-bid 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."
    - WoahNoun 4y ago
      That has nothing to do with the contract Musk actually signed.
- shrikant 4y 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_hot 4y ago
    I'm curious if this (lawsuits) has happened before.
readingnews 4y 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.
- Macha 4y ago
  California has 60 days. Most European countries have more
  - trap_goes_hot 4y ago
    I wasn't aware of the 60 days in CA. Link? Thanks!
    - WoahNoun 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988#State_and_local_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
    - mikebonnell 4y ago
      CA WARN act -- https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
  - quux 4y ago
    New York as well
  - themadturk 4y ago
    Washington, too. https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN
  - coredog64 4y 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.
bedast 4y 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.
- renonn 4y ago
  - GaylordTuring 4y ago
    - emkoemko 4y ago
      its becoming creepy
- atomicone 4y 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.
  - notyourwork 4y 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 4y 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.
    - 4y ago
dmix 4y ago
Here is the caselaw for the last time Tesla got sued under WARN Act: https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/1--22-cv-00597/Lynch_et_al_v._Tesla_Inc/37/ 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-labor-suit-heads-to-arbitration/ https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/tesla-workers-warn-act-...
soumyadeb 4y ago
Is Stripe/Lyft exempted from this?
- pwinnski 4y 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.
nemo44x 4y 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.
- pessimizer 4y 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 4y ago
Musk reminds me everyday of a russian/Eastern European oligarch. He is a thug.
RONROC 4y ago
The "move fast and break things" crowd cries foul when they happen to be the thing that gets broke. Funny how that works.
rco8786 4y 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 4y ago
The amount of commenters here claiming putting people on gardening leave being illegal is absolutely astonishing.
nemo44x 4y 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 4y 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 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.
jjmorrison 4y 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.
deathanatos 4y ago
The complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-al-v-twitter-layoff-lawsuit-complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-a...
crusty 4y ago
I wish I had confidence that there were Fediverse players ready to capitalize on this poo-show.
prepend 4y 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 https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp

234 points by thesecretceo 4y 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 4y ago
Like someone was in a rush to be lead plaintiff, or the representing law firm.
- watwut 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Musk had previously tried to avoid paying severance at Tesla, so it was absolutely not guaranteed to happen here.
baidifnaoxi 4y 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 4y 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.
  - pb7 4y ago
    That's not how lawsuits work. You don't sue someone for something they might do with zero indication that they will. When you buy a company headquartered in California and elect to layoff half of it, you probably know your legal obligations.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do. Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to laws?
      - spoils19 4y ago
        pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.
        4y ago
emedchill 4y 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-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
- bourgeoismedia 4y 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.
  - nullc 4y ago
    It'll be interesting to see if any of them are bold enough to argue that their ability to exert influence over the public via their role at twitter was a material part of their compensation.
    - sulam 4y ago
      You apparently have a very negative view of people who work at Twitter. I worked there for 4.5 years and literally no one I worked with or knew of there would ever make such an argument. The only people who even really have a claim to such an argument got last week and we haven't heard a thing from them, although I'm anticipating some sort of lawsuit having to be filed to recover the real USD compensation owed to them for their summary firing "for cause."
      - nullc 4y ago
        The posted email, linked two posts up stated that "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 [90 days out]". Unless they want to claim some side effect of working is part of the employee's compensation this lawsuit looks baseless enough to be an abuse of process.
    - chitowneats 4y ago
maeln 4y 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 4y ago
  I mean in France, "at will" employment is illegal at first place.
  - spoils19 4y ago
    Horrible for the free market, imo.
    - TheRealPomax 4y ago
      Probably not, since it encourages companies to actually invest in people that they can't just fire at will. Society comes out on top, and business is kept accountable for how they treat human beings. The free market with at will employment is a race to the bottom. France's model is more of a steady march to the top.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        > France's model is more of a steady march to the top Eagerly awaiting for France to have their own equivalents (in terms of success and worldwide influence) of Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. As well as for their devs to be paid even remotely close to what they can get paid in the US. From what I am seeing, even "the year of Linux on desktop" is more likely to happen than that. Which doesn't inspire much confidence.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
quantified 4y ago
From [https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/read-blunt-twitter-email-telling-142536755.html 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?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pbreit 4y ago
Does anyone know what WARN actually requires? If they are copensated for 60 days, does that suffice?
- Tangurena2 4y 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_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 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.
  - pbreit 4y ago
    So does that just mean they need to be paid for 60 days (which they are)?

jleyank 4y 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 4y 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.
- jleyank 4y 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 4y ago
  There is the WARN act which is a federal law. But that only applies to larger companies and mass layoffs.
- coredog64 4y 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 4y 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/1 https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1588586560986882048/photo...

awb 4y 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.

e40 4y ago
The stunning thing is that he didn't consult a proper lawyer that would have told him how to avoid the lawsuit.
- klooney 4y ago
  Tesla got hit for the same thing recently- probably he knew and just didn't care.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zimpenfish 4y 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.
- keneda7 4y 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-twitter-staff-jobs-axed-layoffs-2022-11 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_Machine 4y 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?"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notafraudster 4y ago
Among people I know at Twitter who got laid off, they have 60 days of notice during which they don't need to work but still get paid + severance commensurate with their tenure (30+ days). All of them think this whole process is an absolute fucking shitshow and the company is going to swirl the toilet bowl, but I don't think any feel as though their legal rights were violated.

cma 4y 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-return-to-office-gentlemens-layoffs-twitter/ 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.

gnicholas 4y 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.
- cma 4y 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.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    Ah, I wasn't aware of that. So they said that people could be remote forever? Was this a company-wide policy, or just certain teams?

NoblePublius 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
- cronix 4y ago
  Until, and if, it's heard by a court, a lawsuit is just a one sided opinion.
- trap_goes_hot 4y 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 4y 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.

mikestew 4y 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".

rickstanley 4y ago
The original title is 11 characters too long for submission.
- mikestew 4y 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.
  - deathanatos 4y ago
    Agree w/ your point, and your suggested title. Looking at the slug, it seems like TFA might have originally butchered, and later changed the title, too.
  - rickstanley 4y ago
    My mistake, I read you comment erroneously. Sorry.
    - mikestew 4y ago
      No worries, hopefully someone benefits from the discussion as to how and why HN titles sometimes end up the way they do.
- themanmaran 4y ago

chevman 4y 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 4y 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?
- pwinnski 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Another classic Musk maneuver. Tesla (in)famously doesn't have a PR department.
  - Tangurena2 4y ago
    His PR department is his personal Twitter account.
rtkwe 4y 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?

erehweb 4y 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).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
illuminerdy 4y 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.
- WoahNoun 4y 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.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    He definitely has a vibe of seeming to think he's above the law, IMHO. TBF, he is in most cases, just not that particular one.
  - emkoemko 4y ago
    remember how he defrauded the US government to get subsidies for Tesla? i don't even understand after finding this out how he does not get in trouble?
- jonathankoren 4y 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.

55555 4y 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.

jefftk 4y ago
Among other issues with this view, Musk repeatedly said the deal was off and only closed after Twitter sued.
mjmsmith 4y ago
IANAL, but "everyone knew" probably doesn't constitute "proper legal notice".
nomel 4y ago
Rumors and assumptions don't count as notice, in the eyes of the law.
klyrs 4y 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.

insane_dreamer 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
I mean realistically this just makes it worse for them should they try to seek external employment.

trap_goes_hot 4y 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.

WoahNoun 4y 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_hot 4y ago
  There is a lot of confusion with people offering their own opinions. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/twitter-board-of-directors-adopt-poison-pill-defense-against-musk-takeover-bid 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."
  - WoahNoun 4y ago
    That has nothing to do with the contract Musk actually signed.
shrikant 4y 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_hot 4y ago
  I'm curious if this (lawsuits) has happened before.

readingnews 4y 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.

Macha 4y ago
California has 60 days. Most European countries have more
- trap_goes_hot 4y ago
  I wasn't aware of the 60 days in CA. Link? Thanks!
  - WoahNoun 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988#State_and_local_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
  - mikebonnell 4y ago
    CA WARN act -- https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
- quux 4y ago
  New York as well
- themadturk 4y ago
  Washington, too. https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN https://esd.wa.gov/about-employees/WARN
- coredog64 4y 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.

bedast 4y 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.

renonn 4y ago
- GaylordTuring 4y ago
  - emkoemko 4y ago
    its becoming creepy
atomicone 4y 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.
- notyourwork 4y 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 4y 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.
  - 4y ago

dmix 4y ago

Here is the caselaw for the last time Tesla got sued under WARN Act: https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc https://casetext.com/case/lynch-v-tesla-inc https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/1--22-cv-00597/Lynch_et_al_v._Tesla_Inc/37/ 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-labor-suit-heads-to-arbitration/ https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/tesla-workers-warn-act-...

soumyadeb 4y ago

Is Stripe/Lyft exempted from this?

pwinnski 4y 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.

nemo44x 4y 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.

pessimizer 4y 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 4y ago

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

RONROC 4y ago

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

rco8786 4y 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 4y ago

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

nemo44x 4y 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 4y 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 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.

jjmorrison 4y 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.

deathanatos 4y ago

The complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-al-v-twitter-layoff-lawsuit-complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23264502-cornet-et-a...

crusty 4y ago

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

prepend 4y 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 https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp