Employees Of Twitter, Now X File A Lawsuit Against Them

Elon Musk’s X Corp. is facing 2,200 mediation cases, a court filing in a Delaware locale court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC) on Monday August 28.

Ex-Twitter workers are suing Musk’s social media company saying it failed to pay them guaranteed severance, but delayed their arbitration or mediation cases by failing to pay filing charges.

The JAMS alternative dispute resolution system’s filing fees for Twitter’s 2,200 arbitration cases could reach $3.5 million, with additional costs anticipated.

X, previously known as Twitter, ex-workers filed after Elon Musk assumed control over the organization, cut headcount, and rolled out other clearing improvements there. The filing fees alone for that volume of cases could add up to $3.5 million.

Twitter Makes Changes To Number Of Posts You Can Read

Woodfield, a former ranking staff network engineer who had worked at Twitter’s Seattle office, cites in his suit that Musk’s Twitter (now known as X) had promised but failed to pay his severance, and later postponed elective question goal by also ceasing to pay the vital fees expected for him to push forward in the JAMS mediation system.

As per the site for JAMS,

“For two-party matters, the Filing Fee is $2,000,” and “For matters based on a clause or agreement that is required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400.”

Since JAMS concluded that this fundamental fees applies no matter how you look at it to X’s 2,200 intervention cases, that would add up to around $3.5 million, with different charges potentially to follow.

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.

Meanwhile, Woodfield and others in a similar situation are trying to get out of arbitration and move their cases to trial.

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.

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.

Proponents view arbitration as a way for companies and employees to resolve their issues efficiently without leaving employees on the hook for massive attorney’s fees, especially if they lose their case.

The Woodfield case against Musk’s X Corp. resembles another proposed class action filed in a San Francisco federal court.

In that case, Ma v. Twitter, in the Northern District of California (No. 3:23-cv-3301), ex-employees of Musk-era Twitter allege that the company delayed at least 891 arbitration cases by failing to pay required filing fees after compelling employees to agree to arbitrate their disputes in exchange for severance.

credit: CNBC

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *