3 ms·
They're legally obligated because of the WARN Act.
by greenhorn360 4y ago
They're legally obligated because of the WARN Act.
- gedy 4y agoI'm not defending Twitter but it sounds like this person may still be getting paid (due to WARN), just hadn't got severance letter.
- shagie 4y agoThe WARN act does not mandate severance. It does, instead, mandate that the employee is given a 30 (edit: California is 60, federal is 30) day notice that they will be laid off. It would be completely within the law to say "you will be laid off on Feb 4" and require you to work until Feb 4, and not have any sort of additional severance pay. Severance pay is not required under California law. 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. Confusing severance pay, WARN act, and the common practice of garden leave can make it harder for people to understand what they are entitled to.
- Supermancho 4y agoThis seems like a long-winded couching of the simple premise that would explain what happened. The tweet/author is misrepresenting the situation or was promised something he isn't legally entitled to, regardless. > mandate that the employee is given a 30 day notice that they will be laid off ie maybe he was terminated with notice and it wasn't explicitly labeled a severance letter.