Cornet v. Twitter, Inc.

Cornet v. Twitter, Inc.

Opinion

ORDER RE LITIGATION NOTICE

In early November 2022, after a buyout by Elon Musk, defendant Twitter, Inc., laid off a substantial portion of its workforce. Named plaintiffs sued Twitter on behalf of themselves and a putative class of other Twitter employees alleging that the layoffs violated federal and state laws. The second amended complaint (SAC), which is the operative complaint, contends that the layoffs did not comply with the federal and California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Acts, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq. The SAC also alleges breach of contract claims against Twitter, and violations of California employment laws. See generally Dkt. No. 40.

Twitter says that its employees typically agreed to arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their employment agreements. It has a pending [*2]  motion to compel arbitration and strike the class allegations, Dkt. No. 18, which will be taken up in January 2023.

The question presently before the Court is whether Twitter should give employees notice of this case in connection with severance packages that include a release of claims. Plaintiffs have asked for a "protective order" requiring such notice. Dkt. No. 7. Twitter agreed not seek releases from employees pending a decision on plaintiffs' request. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. The Court expedited the briefing, and held a hearing on December 8, 2022. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 39.

Plaintiffs rely primarily on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) as the basis of their request, but "district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases." Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 195 L. Ed. 2d 161 (2016). Rule 23(d) is a specific application of this broad case management authority in the class action context. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1) (authorizing orders to "protect class members and fairly conduct the action" via "appropriate notice"); see also Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100, 101 S. Ct. 2193, 68 L. Ed. 2d 693 (1981) (the Court "has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties"). Among other measures, [*3]  the Court may regulate communications with potential class members. See Gulf Oil, 452 U.S. at 101-02.

On the record before the Court, a succinct and plainly worded notice of this case is warranted. Twitter intends to offer severance agreements to laid off employees, and its attorney stated at the hearing that it will ask for a general release as part of the package. Twitter will also ask employees to waive California Civil Code Section 1542, which would protect an employee from releasing claims that are unknown to them and that "would have materially affected [their] settlement with" Twitter. Cal. Civ. Code § 1542.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.