4 ms·

IANAL, but I don't think this is going to fly in court given that (4 times) more than 50 people were let go at once. If it looks like a layoff and quacks like

IANAL, but I don't think this is going to fly in court given that (4 times) more than 50 people were let go at once. If it looks like a layoff and quacks like a layoff, I don't think the judge or a jury is going to care what SpaceX calls it. Kind of surprised a company that is so on the ball technically would fuck something like this up; it is definitely going to end up costing them way more than 2 months severance to everyone (plus whatever they were owed -- some people claim they didn't even get that) would have.

gpm 12y ago
In this case I think it might, I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant law seems to be this one (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1400-1408 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...), which defines layoff as > "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.
- sokoloff 12y ago
  US Dept of Labor and the Federal WARN Act have specific requirements for employers over 100 employees where 50 or more are let go from a single location in a 30-day period: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law. (I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)
  - gpm 12y ago
    The article says that the suit is about a alleged "violation of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.", and "The Cal WARN Act", not the Federal WARN Act. I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.
    - hga 12y ago
      The "not paying them wages earned before termination" would be a matter of state law, and with California having its own WARN Act, I presume the lawyers think it's best to sue in state court.
  - stillworking 12y ago
    http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN. The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply. Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money

gpm 12y ago

In this case I think it might, I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant law seems to be this one (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1400-1408 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...), which defines layoff as > "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.

sokoloff 12y ago
US Dept of Labor and the Federal WARN Act have specific requirements for employers over 100 employees where 50 or more are let go from a single location in a 30-day period: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law. (I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)
- gpm 12y ago
  The article says that the suit is about a alleged "violation of California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.", and "The Cal WARN Act", not the Federal WARN Act. I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.
  - hga 12y ago
    The "not paying them wages earned before termination" would be a matter of state law, and with California having its own WARN Act, I presume the lawyers think it's best to sue in state court.
- stillworking 12y ago
  http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/pdf/EmployerWARN09_2003.pdf The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN. The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply. Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money