3 ms·

I don't get what happens if you refuse to sign one of these when you're laid off. Aren't employers still required to offer severance under laws like the WARN ac

I don't get what happens if you refuse to sign one of these when you're laid off. Aren't employers still required to offer severance under laws like the WARN act? It's not like they can fire you for not signing...

junofan 4y ago
Nothing. AFAIK these boilerplate agreements are just so you sign something and go away.
chrisco255 4y ago
Maybe if they're offering additional benefits beyond the legal requirements, ie longer severance, they could threaten to withhold those? I guess what some companies were doing is saying "ok, we give you 4 months severance, but you agree to waive X, Y, and Z rights".
- shagie 4y ago
  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. The corresponding part is that if you can't waive X, Y, and Z - will the company still offer severance pay?
shagie 4y ago
The WARN act is not severance. Typically with a tech company where they are concerned about a person walking out with IP the company will instead put the employee on garden leave for the duration. It would also be completely within the WARN act to say "you are going to be laid off on April 24th, however you are required to show up for the next 60 days and do knowledge transfer to the rest of the team." And then on April 24th, you sign that you acknowledge that you've been let go, you hand in your badge, get your final paycheck and payout of any accrued vacation and then walk out the door and that's it - no other payments. Employers have never been required to offer severance. For example - the document on final pay for California. 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. --- Typically, the stuff you sign when you leave is a payment contingent upon a promise not to cause future problems for the company. Don't disparage them, don't threaten to sue them for certain things relating to being discharged from the company. If you don't sign it - you don't get the severance pay.
- fatnoah 4y ago
  Correct, the max penalty under WARN act is 60 days pay. I fell into the first bucket you mentioned. I was on the payroll for 60 days, but had all access to systems disabled and was expected to do no work, though the company reserved the right to call on me should the need arise. I am curious to see how this works, since my severance was accelerated stock vesting, and was given in return for agreeing to the non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. If those aren't available any more, I wonder if companies will be less inclined to offer severance since they get less in return.
  - lsaferite 4y ago
    IANAL Acceleration of vesting is also potentially a legal protection against litigation claiming an employee was terminated to prevent vesting. It's often easier to just let someone vest than to prove you are not trying to get out of the grant.
    - fatnoah 4y ago
      I'm sure. I also missed out on the second half of my joining bonus that would have actually been worth more due to the absolute cratering of the company stock price.

junofan 4y ago

Nothing. AFAIK these boilerplate agreements are just so you sign something and go away.

chrisco255 4y ago

Maybe if they're offering additional benefits beyond the legal requirements, ie longer severance, they could threaten to withhold those? I guess what some companies were doing is saying "ok, we give you 4 months severance, but you agree to waive X, Y, and Z rights".

shagie 4y ago
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. The corresponding part is that if you can't waive X, Y, and Z - will the company still offer severance pay?

shagie 4y ago

The WARN act is not severance. Typically with a tech company where they are concerned about a person walking out with IP the company will instead put the employee on garden leave for the duration. It would also be completely within the WARN act to say "you are going to be laid off on April 24th, however you are required to show up for the next 60 days and do knowledge transfer to the rest of the team." And then on April 24th, you sign that you acknowledge that you've been let go, you hand in your badge, get your final paycheck and payout of any accrued vacation and then walk out the door and that's it - no other payments. Employers have never been required to offer severance. For example - the document on final pay for California. 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. --- Typically, the stuff you sign when you leave is a payment contingent upon a promise not to cause future problems for the company. Don't disparage them, don't threaten to sue them for certain things relating to being discharged from the company. If you don't sign it - you don't get the severance pay.

fatnoah 4y ago
Correct, the max penalty under WARN act is 60 days pay. I fell into the first bucket you mentioned. I was on the payroll for 60 days, but had all access to systems disabled and was expected to do no work, though the company reserved the right to call on me should the need arise. I am curious to see how this works, since my severance was accelerated stock vesting, and was given in return for agreeing to the non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. If those aren't available any more, I wonder if companies will be less inclined to offer severance since they get less in return.
- lsaferite 4y ago
  IANAL Acceleration of vesting is also potentially a legal protection against litigation claiming an employee was terminated to prevent vesting. It's often easier to just let someone vest than to prove you are not trying to get out of the grant.
  - fatnoah 4y ago
    I'm sure. I also missed out on the second half of my joining bonus that would have actually been worth more due to the absolute cratering of the company stock price.