LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

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 has given to some (but not all) employees to satisfy the WARN Act.  We contend that all employees who have lost their jobs at Twitter since Elon Musk took over 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.  This case also challenges the lack of WARN Act notice/pay for employees who Twitter claims to have fired for cause (but who we claim were simply part of the mass layoff).  This case also makes a claim for promissory estoppel, that employees relied on the previous severance promise and thus didn’t look for another job earlier this year when the job market was better.  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).  This case also contains a claim of promissory estoppel that employees reasonably relied on the promise that they would be allowed to continue working remotely for at least a year after Musk took over the company and thus didn’t look for another job before his purchase.

 

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).

 

BORODAENKO v. TWITTER  -  This case challenges Twitter’s discrimination against disabled employees, as well as employees who were taking family or medical leave, or who had planned to take leave soon, and were let go by Twitter – or who did not accept the Twitter 2.0 Nov. 17th ultimatum, which would deter disabled employees from thinking they could continue working at Twitter.  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.  We are also challenging the layoff of employees on leave, or planning to take leave, under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and (for those employees in California) under California law.

 

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.

 
In addition to these cases, we have also filed 3 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 these employees for trying to help their co-workers.  The first one was Manu Cornet, the first employee to be let go on November 1, who was fired shortly after posting a way for employees to access their HR documents and vesting information, in case they needed it in the event of mass layoffs.  The other two employees we have filed charges for were let go after encouraging fellow employees to protest Musk’s new policies, including the abrupt return to office policy.  We are continuing to evaluate additional NLRB charges, and we expect the NLRB will investigate further Twitter’s attempt to interfere with employees attempting to advocate for one another.