Age discrimination layoff case against X granted class-action status Thousands of people were caught up in the mass Twitter layoffs following Elon Musk's acquisition/deconstruction of the platform. Now, according to a judge, 150 of them can collectively sue the social media giant for age discrimination in its decision to lay them off. US District Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of …
Here in the UK, the government (or the previous government, I think we had a change recently) is concerned about the large number of us 'older'* people who have 'left the workforce' and are classified as 'not economically active'** who for some reason*** are not 'returning to the workforce', whereas in good old USAland us oldies are being laid off.
* For Apple fanbois older = 'vintage' in this context.
** Which I resent, I mean, if I'm 'not economically active' why do I havre to pay for my copy of the FT?
*** My personal pension fund currently sits at just over £1,000,000, why on Earth would I go back to working for anyone else? (Answers on a postcard to HMG, please.)
The order granting this motion doesn’t mention much evidence for age discrimination, beyond a statistical analysis of the people laid off and some comments from His Muskiness. More specific evidence could come out at trial. The way I saw events though was that Musk asked the Twitter managers to choose which 51% of staff would be fired and gave them an idiotically short amount of time to do it. (No good reason it had to be done so quickly, just another dick move by king dick). I wouldn’t be surprised if it came down to sorting an Excel spreadsheet of employees by salary and firing the better paid staff, which would likely target older employees more than younger employees.
If your actions discriminate against a group but the intention was not discriminatory, is that discrimination?
Musk deserves a legal kicking for the way he treats people, so I’m on the plaintiff’s side. I’m not sure it’s a strong case though.
"If your actions discriminate against a group but the intention was not discriminatory, is that discrimination?"
Yes - in UK law (and EU law, I think). It's called indirect discrimination. I don't know about the U.S.
US Law makes it impossible for him to run for President, like it made it Impossible for Governator to do it after his stint as California Governor a few decades ago.
You must be Born in the USA to be able to become a presidential candidate.
Elon was born in South Africa... So being an Orange Clown Sycophant wiith a Special Councilor to the POTUS title is as near as he'll be able to come to the Top Job.
( and obviously Governator is Austria born )
"Born in the USA" - I know what you mean, but more accurately, one must be a "natural born citizen" of the USA, which has been accepted to include anyone who does not need to go through naturalization process to be a citizen of USA. Which means, for example, that Obama would have qualified even if he had been born in Kenya, as he would still have had a birthright to USA citizenship through his Mother.
Of course he doesn't think that. He knows the person is easily manipulated, is impressed by wealth, and that he can likely influence what legislation is proposed. Anything to bypass the regulations that restrict his business.
Technically, money X has to pay. And as someone pointed out above, they might file for reorganization (chapter 11) or liquidation (chapter 7) if things get bad enough. Apparently some legal judgements can be discharged in a personal chapter-7 bankruptcy, but I have no idea whether that's true for a corporate one, or if so whether it would be true for any judgements that come out of any of these cases, or how it would apply to any settlements, or if not discharged where such debts would rank in the list of creditors to receive payment.
While it'd be lovely if the court decided to make Musk personally liable for some of this, I don't see much chance of that happening.
But then a lot of his nominal wealth is in stock in his companies, so bankruptcies and loss of confidence and thus stock value could both hurt him quite a lot.
This is Standard Operating Procedure for large corporations. They will always call it an "expense reduction action", but it's always done in a way that they will force early retirement on the older higher paid employees and put the younger lower paid employees in their place. It's been done for decades but they all of a sudden want to punish X?? Sounds suspiciously political in nature.
Musky laid off what, 90 percent of the workforce? The only targeting done here was with a shotgun so I don't think they're going to prove age discrimination unless the court is one who judges according to popular opinion instead of the law.
Musky laid off 9 out of every 10 people, and didn't replace them with anyone except for a select few they discovered were actually doing the work. If they hired even one over-55 back, there goes the case.
I'm still wondering if this whole thing isn't part of a grand scheme to transfer debt from Tesla and SpaceX to Twatter, after which he'll put Twatter back out as a public company along with stepping down as CEO. People jump back in to Twatter, only paying attention to "Musky Gone!" instead of the debt while forgetting that Twatter never did make a profit, and Musky's other companies lose a shitload of debt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
