Tweet

More from @LisaBloom

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Nov 17

The federal National Labor Relations Act prohibits retaliation against groups of employees working together in in a concerted action seeking better employment conditions.

Here’s how this could work for Twitter workers facing “opt in or be fired” choice today.

#TwitterLayoffs

Twitter employees can opt in to Musk’s “bend the knee” mandate to hold onto their jobs.
Then a small brave group could approach management and state that while everyone is willing to work hard and strive for excellence, they oppose the mandate of “long hours at high intensity.”

Requests like this are always best done respectful and in writing so it’s clear later exactly what was said.

While NRLA generally protects union organizing activities, it also protects nonunion workers simply working together (must be 2 or more) for better working conditions.

Read 7 tweets

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Nov 16

Let’s talk about the legal problems Elon just created for himself with this cruel new staff email.

You’re fired if you don’t commit to long hours at high intensity within 24 hours?

Let’s start with disabled workers.

@elonmusk

Under federal and state laws, those with physical or mental disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations by their employers. For many, this would include working reasonable hours.

@elonmusk are you planning a mass layoff of your remaining disabled workers?

Next, childcare still overwhelmingly disproportionately impacts female workers, for whom working long hours on a regular basis is often just a hard no.

So we have a gender discrimination issue too.

#TwitterLayoffs

Read 7 tweets

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Nov 5

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.)

#TwitterLayoffs

Now I know from several good sources that pre-Elon terminated employees got:

1. two months' severance
2. prorated bonuses
3. early vesting of upcoming equity

OOPS! Elon forgot to give workers #2 and #3.

But workers were not parties to the contract. Do they still have rights?

Read 6 tweets

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Nov 4

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.

Read 9 tweets

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Jan 12

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.

And indeed it does.

Read 12 tweets

Lisa Bloom

@LisaBloom

Jan 4

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.

Read 24 tweets

Share this page!

Lisa Bloom

People who liked this thread also liked...

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @LisaBloom

Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!