7 Former Twitter Employees Sue for Discrimination, FMLA Violations After Musk Buy
Seven former Twitter employees sued Twitter and X Corp. Tuesday for discrimination and/or violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) involving their “separations from employment with Twitter during the chaotic days” after Elon Musk bought the company, said a class action (docket 3:23-cv-04016) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Shortly after Musk completed his purchase of Twitter, now known as X Corp., “he immediately began laying off well more than half of its workforce,” said the complaint, saying most laid off employees were notified Nov. 4. The “mass termination has impacted employees in a number of protected categories to a much greater degree than other employees,” it said. Decisions on which employees would be laid off were made “under extremely hurried circumstances, with little if any regard given to employees’ job performance, qualifications, experience, and abilities,” it said. Decisions on laying off “thousands of employees were made in a period of just days after Musk’s acquisition of the company,” it said.
Other employees were notified of their layoffs Nov. 23, said the complaint, referencing reports that layoff decisions were made “quickly by a small group of managers, under close supervision by Musk.” Some managers were brought in from other companies owned by Musk, such as Telsa, and “did not have much, if any, knowledge about Twitter’s operations,” it said.
A “significantly greater proportion of women” were laid off vs. men, said the complaint, saying 57% of female employees were laid off on Nov. 4 vs. 47% of male employees. A larger proportion of older employees vs. younger were laid off, as were Black employees vs. those of other races, it said. Also, employees who had taken, or were preparing to take, family or medical leave were more likely to be laid off than other employees, it said.
Plaintiff Nhu Weinberg of Piedmont, California, had taken family leave in recent years and was separated from Twitter soon after returning from a medical leave. She’s challenging the termination of employees who had taken or applied to take a medical or family leave of absence under the FMLA, said the complaint.
Weinberg also brings claims of discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, along with plaintiffs Samantha Gongora of Boulder, Colorado; Julia Steele of Dallas; Nanci Sills of Palmetto Bay, Florida; and Krista Bessinger of Piedmont, California. The four plaintiffs are challenging their terminations after Musk’s acquisition “as the product of unlawful sex discrimination against female employees,” said the complaint.
San Francisco plaintiff Omolade Ogunsanya, who is Black, also brings a claim of discrimination under Section 2000e, challenging his termination after Musk’s purchase as the product of “unlawful race-based discrimination against Black employees.” Plaintiff Ikuhiro Ihara of New York, along with Bessinger, bring claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, challenging terminations after Musk’s purchase as the product of unlawful age discrimination against employees age 50 or older, the complaint said.
The plaintiffs all filed administrative charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and have received right to sue letters to pursue these claims in court, the complaint said. The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the class declaratory relief and the reinstatement of female, Black and older employees who wish to return to their jobs, plus employees terminated in violation of the FMLA; compensatory, emotional distress and punitive damages under Title VII; liquidated damages under the ADEA; pre- and post-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs. X Corp. didn't comment.