Having investigated #TwitterLayoffs with dozens of tweeps now, let's talk about important employee rights under Elon's "merger" agreement (the one he tried to wriggle out of, and couldn't.)
His promises there are important and legally enforceable by laid off folks. Here's why.
Part of what Elon promises when buying Twitter was that workers laid off post-Elon would get no worse compensation and benefits than workers laid off pre-Elon.
Read it for yourself. (Or just believe me, I read boring fine print for a living.)
Also, I would argue that since today's workers are being kept as workers on payroll, ordered to continue to follow Twitter's code of conduct and policies, they aren't really being given "severance," which normally starts on or after termination.
Hey Twitter employees getting laid off tomorrow! IMPORTANT INFO from a CA employment attorney (me):
CA's "WARN" law requires Twitter to give you 60 days notice of a massive layoff.
A layoff of 50+ employees within a 30 day period qualifies.
I know you didn't get that notice.
This WARN law applies to all California employers of 75+ employees, which obviously includes Twitter with its thousands of employees.
Purpose of the law is to give laid off employees time to figure out how to handle this disruption.
And Elon completely ignores it.
Employers like Twitter who violate the WARN Act face civil penalties of $500/day for each violation. With thousands of employees, this could be significant, though maybe not to Elon.
Reading the judge's 46 page decision rejecting Prince Andrew's attempt to throw out Virginia Giuffre's case now.
A detailed, well reasoned decision.
Noteworthy: Judge Kaplan is keenly aware "the lay public" will be reading this, so he takes pains to spell out the law clearly.
As Judge Kaplan says, his obligation now is to assume all of Virginia's facts in her complaint are true -- though later the jury will decide those facts. For now, the only question is whether Prince Andrew had grounds to get her case dismissed.
Decision: nope, he does not.
Judge points out that Ghislaine Maxwell's recent conviction in the same judicial district, SDNY, bolsters Virginia's claim.
LIVE now: Prince Andrew’s attorney is arguing that Virginia Giuffre’s case against him should be dismissed due to a 2009 settlement agreement in which she released all “potential defendants.”
Judge Kaplan aggressively questioning him about the law on this.
I’m listening in.
Prince Andrew's attorney is now arguing that Virginia's complaint is too vague as it does not include the dates she says she was abused by him. Only says she was 17 at the time.
Judge: "that's not a dog that's gonna hunt here. She has no obligation to do that in the complaint."
Judge: "I understand your point. It's just not the law." Defense attorney keeps arguing. Bad idea. Once the judge has made his view clear, time to move on to other arguments.
Virginia Giuffre's settlement agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was released today. Prince Andrew argues that her settlement with Epstein releases him as well, and therefore her case against him should be dismissed.
I've done hundreds of these over 35 years
Here's why he is wrong
Virginia's settlement agreement includes truly unusual and bizarre language that I would never allow in a settlement agreement: that claims against "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" is also released.
WHAT???
Contracts must be clear and specific. This is incomprehensibly vague. Virginia can never sue any others who wronged her, because she settled with Epstein?
This makes no sense, and flies in the face of NY law which grants sexual abuse survivors more time to sue.
My top ten disturbing, outrageous moments from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial this week:
10. There were pictures of topless girls, taken by amateur photographer Ghislaine, adorning her desk.
(And throughout Epstein’s revolting homes.)
9. Defense gets likeable maintenance man to admit he sometimes, when instructed, scheduled massages, paid the girls, drove Ghislaine to find girls to give massages, then:
“Does that make you guilty of sex trafficking?”
Objection sustained, but the point was made.
8. Driver testifies employees were instructed never to look Epstein directly in the eyes.
Testifying now in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial is Dr. Lisa Rocchio, an expert explaining grooming, delayed reporting, and the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. Important stuff to undermine all of the myths the defense wants to argue in this and every case.
For example, the fact that a victim did not report child sexual abuse until many years later is very common. That only happens in adulthood when they have a relationship of trust with a friend or therapist.
I have seen this in so many of my cases over the last 30 years.
Dr. Rocchio also explained how confusing child sexual abuse is for victims, especially when they are in a close relationship with the perpetrator. That was the case for Jane who testified yesterday. This is why the abuse so often continues for many years.