TWITTER EMPLOYEES: Contact us for information on how to bring a legal claim
We have filed a dozen class action cases, nearly 2,000 arbitrations, and charges with the National Labor Relations Board challenging Twitter's treatment of workers since Elon Musk took over the company.
In addition to the cases we have brought on behalf of former employees, we recently filed a case on behalf of current and former employees who did not receive their 2022 bonus as promised.
We are a nationally recognized employee rights firm. We pioneered the technique of bringing mass arbitrations 15 years ago, when companies attempt to block class actions through the use of arbitration agreements.
In our initial action, the court has compelled arbitration, meaning that most employees need to sign up for an arbitration if you want to enforce your rights. We believe all employees who were employed at Twitter before Elon Musk bought the company and have lost their jobs are entitled to additional severance pay, and many have additional legal claims as well.
Read below about our legal actions against Twitter and reach out to us with any questions.
SEVERANCE PAY
CORNET V. TWITTER - This case challenges Twitter for reneging on the promise that laid off employees would get the same severance that had previously been offered (at least 2 months base pay, bonuses, 3 months equity vesting, and health care contributions). We contend that this severance should be paid in addition to the 2 (or 3 for New York) months notice/pay that Twitter gave to many (but not all) employees to satisfy the WARN Act. We contend that all employees who were employed at Twitter before Elon Musk took over and who have lost their jobs are entitled to both the promised severance and WARN Act pay – including employees who lost their jobs by not clicking “yes” on the “Twitter 2.0” ultimatum of Nov. 17. Our argument in this case is that the severance is owed for 3 separate reasons: (1) it was promised directly to employees, which constitutes a direct contract; (2) it was in the merger agreement, for which employees are third party beneficiaries (although the agreement has contradictory language, we contend it should be construed in the employees’ favor, because Twitter drafted it); and (3) promissory estoppel – even if there is not a binding contract, employees are entitled to the severance because they reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment).
BORGHINO v. TWITTER - This California state court case challenges Twitter for reneging on its promise regarding severance for California employees.
WARN ACT VIOLATIONS
RODRIGUEZ v. TWITTER – This case is filed on behalf of “contractor” employees who were paid through PRO Unlimited. In this case, we are challenging Twitter’s failure to provide any WARN Act notice or pay in lieu of notice, as well as Twitter’s failure to pay all compensation and expense reimbursement upon termination (for employees in California).
DISCRIMINATION
STRIFLING v. TWITTER - This case is a sex discrimination case. We are challenging Twitter’s layoff for having impacted female employees at a much higher rate than male employees. We have obtained information regarding which employees were laid off and not laid off, and we have analyzed the data to find that women were laid off at statistically significantly higher rates than men, across the company. Overall, about 57% of women were laid off on Nov. 4, and 47% of men were laid off that day. According to our expert statistician, the chance of that disparity having occurred by chance is about 9 in 100 trillion. This disparity cannot be explained away based upon Musk’s emphasis on focusing on engineering roles. For engineering-related positions, the sex disparity is even stronger: 63% of women in engineering-related positions were laid off, while 48% of men were. For non-engineering-related positions, 51% of women were laid off, and 42% of men were. All of these disparities are highly statistically significant. We also allege in this case that Musk’s unreasonable demands on the workforce (requiring excessive hours, etc.) would have a greater impact of female employees, who are more likely to having caretaking demands on them at home.
WEINBERG v. TWITTER - This case includes claims of sex, race, and age discrimination, as well as class claims under the FMLA. We are challenging Twitter’s layoffs for having impacted protected groups at a much higher rate than other employees. This case includes a class claim that employees who were taking family or medical leave, or were preparing to do so, were impacted particularly by the layoffs.
UNPAID VENDORS
UNPAID BONUSES (CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES)
ARBITRATIONS
In addition to these class action cases filed in court, we have also filed nearly 2,000 individual arbitrations. The arbitrations raise the same claims described above, as well as others, including:
-
Twitter’s violation of the FMLA for terminating employees who were taking, or planning to take, family or medical leave.
-
Twitter’s failure to pay promised retention bonuses.
-
Twitter’s discrimination against whistleblowers.
-
Twitter’s failure to reimburse employees for business-related expenses.
NLRB
We have also filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board for Twitter’s violation of the NLRA, which protects employees who engage in concerted activity to improve conditions in the workplace. In these cases, we have alleged that Twitter terminated employees for trying to help their co-workers, including employees who encouraged fellow employees to protest Musk’s new policies, such as the abrupt return to office policy.
We are pleased to have resolved the first of these cases successfully, after the NLRB agreed to issue a complaint:
Twitter Settles Retaliation Claim Over Return to Office Protest
Bloomberg | August 2023