I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits.
Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
> Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.
I disagree.
He got bit by lawsuits over a previous mass layoff at Tesla. The lawyers who filed this lawsuit were the same lawyers involved in the previous one. Links pointing to the previous case:
On first sight, the mass layoffs appear to violate both California & Federal WARN Act notifications.
After reading the email, it appears that they are getting 3 months of "gardening leave" instead paychecks getting cut off at end of day.
> An employer who violates WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days.
The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer.
Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.
I imagine his lawyers are much the same as Trump's - desperately going "Look, you just can't do that!", making sure their objections are written down just in case, and knowing full well he's going to do whatever anyway.
