X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, is facing 2,200 arbitration cases that ex-employees filed after Elon Musk took over the company, slashed headcount, and made other sweeping changes there. The filing fees alone for that volume of cases could amount to $3.5 million.
The arbitration numbers were revealed in a new filing out Monday as part of a lawsuit in a Delaware district court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).
As CNBC has previously reported, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so. This means to speak freely in court, where their speech can become part of a public record, workers would first need to get an exemption from a judge.
I have no sympathy. Companies that require class action waivers and mandatory arbitration clauses don’t get to complain when thousands of people file arbitration claims simultaneously.
I’ve actually used arbitration to get my way in the past when I pointed out to the company that their filing fee for the arbitration was more expensive than just honoring their commitments, so even if I lost they’d be out several times what I wanted.
It would probably be more expensive for 2200 lawsuits, no?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, is facing 2,200 arbitration cases that ex-employees filed after Elon Musk took over the company, slashed headcount, and made other sweeping changes there.
Woodfield, a former senior staff network engineer who had worked at Twitter’s Seattle office, alleges in his suit that Musk’s Twitter (now known as X) had promised then failed to pay his severance, and later delayed alternative dispute resolution by failing to pay the necessary fees required for him to move ahead in the JAMS arbitration system.
The company’s lawyers have argued that it did not mandate employees to resolve any issues in arbitration, so it should not be on the hook for the larger portion of the filing fees.
As CNBC has previously reported, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so.
Critics view arbitration as a secretive system that makes it harder for employees and prospective hires to find out how companies treat their workers, and what happened to people in previous related cases.
The Woodfield case against Musk’s X Corp. resembles another proposed class action filed in a San Francisco federal court.
The original article contains 431 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
$3 million is to $1 billion like $3 is to $1000.
Little bit more legality/politics than technology no?
Yes, but it’s about a major tech company, so maybe it fits? NBC filed it in their ‘Tech News’ section.
Musk isn’t going to give you the time of day. You don’t need to defend his website/app.
It’s a social media company, not a tech company.
Unless you have a magic list of technology the company is releasing.I think that’s just more of a rollover from anything on the internet being labeled as ‘tech’, but like nowadays if the president sends a tweet its really not that notable of news, technologically. We could also start reporting every time a text is sent if we really wanted
You’re technically right, which is the best kind of right. It’s a destructive CEO story who just happens to run a tech company (into the ground)
This is like the Spanish guy kissing the winning footballer woman on the lips against her will. It’s going to be reported under sports, but really it’s a sexism story that just happens to be in sports.
But at least it is being reported and commented on, no?
Shit you got me there ngl
Gonna sink back to my linux n self hosting communities in defeat
