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
ADLER v. TWITTER – This case challenges Twitter's failure to provide 60 days' advance notice to many terminated employees. While most employees did receive pay for 60 days after being notified of their layoff, Twitter did not provide this notice to many employees who it claims to have fired for cause but who we claim were simply part of the mass layoff.
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).
GADALA v. TWITTER – This case if filed on behalf of "contractor" employees who were paid through TEKsystems. In this case, we are challenging Twitter’s failure to provide any WARN Act notice or pay in lieu of notice.
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.
BORODAENKO v. TWITTER - This case challenges Twitter’s discrimination against disabled employees. In this case, we contend that working remotely can be a legally required reasonable accommodation and that Musk’s edict that employees must return to the office immediately discriminated against those employees who needed to continue working remotely as a reasonable accommodation.
ZEMAN v. TWITTER – This case is an age discrimination case. We are challenging Twitter's layoff for having impacted employees age 50 and over at a higher rate than younger employees. We reviewed the information Twitter provided regarding which employees were laid off and not laid off and have found that employees age 50 and over were laid off at a statistically significantly higher rate than younger employees and that employees age 60 and over were laid off at an even higher rate.
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.
FREDERICK-OSBORN v. TWITTER - This case includes claims of sex and age discrimination, challenging Twitter's constructive layoff of female and older workers following the company's initial layoffs after Musk's acquisition of the company, including through the ultimatum given to employees on November 17, 2022.
WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC v. TWITTER – This case challenges Twitter's refusal to pay overdue invoices to vendors. Since Elon Musk purchased the company, it has stopped making payment on invoices to many businesses who have provided services to Twitter, including small businesses. Musk has reportedly said that if these businesses want to get paid, they should sue. So that is what we are doing. We have brought this case on behalf of those businesses who may not be able to bring a legal claim on their own.
UNPAID BONUSES (CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES)
SCHOBINGER v. TWITTER - This case was brought on behalf of current and former employees who did not receive their 2022 bonus as promised.
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.
Despite having forced employees to pursue their claims in individual arbitrations, Twitter has refused to proceed with a number of these arbitrations and has refused to pay the fees it has been ordered to pay. We have filed a motion to compel Twitter to proceed with these arbitrations and pay the required fees.
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.
Fortune | October 2023
We are pleased to have resolved the first of these cases successfully, after the NLRB agreed to issue a complaint:
Bloomberg | August 2023