Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#31

Post by lukevp »

naveen99 wrote: post #24
dmoy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in most of the US, but as detailed in the article, telling people you're paying two months severence (presumably in writing no less) and then not paying it is likely a breach of contract law.

Don’t contracts have to be two sided ? Like a promise to donate no strings attached, and then not donating is no breach of contract. If there are strings attached to donation and the other side promises signs off on the strings, then you have a contract but it’s not a one sided donation.

Giving up a large portion of your life to work for a company isn’t enough of a party to a contract in this regard? Someone could conceivably take this job over others, or not leave as early, if they have assurances of severance. It’s not a gift any more than paying someone for employment is a gift, so I don’t see how this has anything to do with charity.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#33

Post by invalidname »

ttul wrote: post #20
malshe wrote: post #6

This reminds me, did Parag and other in the top management get their money? I didn't see any update on that.

Supposedly, they were dismissed for cause minutes before they would have been awarded millions in severance when the sale closed. I’m fairly sure I recall that Parag and colleagues sued because the dismissal for cause was an obvious stretch of the imagination.

Musk bragged about doing that which will probably be an exhibit in their lawsuit.

I think they'll get everything they want. All they need to do is enter discovery and he'll have to fold.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#34

Post by JellyBeanThief »

Waterluvian wrote: post #22

It’s basically a scumbag move to try to wear the former employees down. I imagine Twitter will just stonewall for as long as they possibly can. What real consequences could the officers of the company actually face that would encourage them to behave like adults?

Give the plaintiffs significant shares in the company, transferred directly as a flat percentage from the other shareholders.

You will find it very hard to reach C-suite level at any publicly company where you cost your shareholders that way. And since it would constitute a violation of fiduciary duty, executives would be able to defend themselves when they take action to avoid that happening.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#35

Post by tayo42 »

Somehow people are still trusting musk run companies? Especially with major public infrastructure stuff and government subsidies. What is the logic. He's backing out of all the promises and shown him self to be unreliable and vindictive but surely that won't happen to us?

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#36

Post by andsoitis »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties.

I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#37

Post by saghm »

andsoitis wrote: post #36
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

> I hope all these folks get their severance, and hopefully with interest, legal fees and penalties. I wonder what percentage the legal team will take. I doubt this is happening pro bono.

Sounds like a good argument for Twitter/X to have to pay the legal fees; the laid off employees should get their full severance, and in order for that to happen, they shouldn't have to spend it on the lawyers

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#38

Post by batguano »

wmf wrote: post #18
hactually wrote: post #3

Surely there's a "change of control" clause in their contractuals?

Who do you think that clause would benefit and how?

Many employees stock options plans vest the options on change of control. All the ones I’ve had did.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#39

Post by talaketu »

fbdab103 wrote: post #23
xienze wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article is not clear. For instance: > In October, shortly after taking Twitter’s reins, Musk laid off more than half of its employees, promising most at least two months’ salary plus a week’s pay for every year they’d worked at the firm. Key word here is the severance was promised to “most”, not “all” employees. Was that how it went down? I dunno, the article doesn’t say. Now you’re saying that no one was paid severa…

The July 12th lawsuit has some choice quotes[0] on exactly what was said. >38. Section 6.9 of the Merger Agreement provided that for one year following the closing of the merger, Twitter would continue to provide Plan participants with “Severance payments and benefits . . . no less favorable than” those provided under Twitter’s policies immediately prior to the merger. > 39. The same day the Merger Agreement was anno…

Note that Employees were not a party to the merger agreement. Does an acquisition FAQ bind the company? I believe the argument is that it was effectively an offer to employees to stick around, and employees who did so effectively accepted the offer, at the cost of other opportunities in the market, and hence this was a binding contract. This doesn't seem so solid to me.

Re: “X” Didn’t Pay Severance. Now It’s Facing 2,200 Cases – and Big Fees

#40

Post by MattGaiser »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

When do they start straight up garnishing X's bank accounts? This behavior is so shitty, indefensible and beyond absurd. I think we need stronger laws that force billionaires to pay when they think the rules just don't apply to them - it's clear they often feel that the sheer expense of the legal system is often a deterrent for poorer folks to get what they are owed. I hope all these folks get their severance, and ho…

In general, there should be prompt payment legislation.

My family used to be in food processing. The grocers (except Walmart, which is one of the reasons they can get lower prices), will straight up just not pay by the date specified in the contract and will make you hound them.

Post reply on HN