Kind of surprised a company that is so on the ball technically would fuck something like this up; it is definitely going to end up costing them way more than 2 months severance to everyone (plus whatever they were owed -- some people claim they didn't even get that) would have.
> "Layoff" means a separation from a position for lack of funds or lack of work.
Doesn't matter if they're layoffs for lack of work or performance-based firings: you still have to comply with the provisions of that law.
(I have no knowledge whether SpaceX did or did not comply, of course.)
The official employers guide to WARN states that people let go for cause are not counted under WARN.
The SpaceX position seems to be: 1) We just did our yearly performance reviews 2) Low performers were fired 3) Since they were all let go for cause, WARN does not apply.
Some people are claiming that it is a layoff and SpaceX is just trying to work around it. I'm imagining the SpaceX position here would be: 1) Layoffs are defined as letting employees go due to reduction in work or lack of money 2) SpaceX is experiencing neither of these 3) SpaceX plans to grow 20% this year; proof that there is no reduction in work 4) SpaceX has lots of open positions and is actively hiring; further proof that there is no reduction in work or lack of money
I have no knowledge of this lawsuit other then this article though.
Edit: I wonder if the downvoters who have not bothered to comment realize that every state in the US except Montana has some form of at will employment. The person I was replying to couldn't be more wrong. (The very obvious claim about not being able to fail to pay people is of course true)
You're being downvoted because you're wrong. At-will employment doesn't mean you can stiff your employees on backwages. It also doesn't mean you don't need to comply with Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) laws, which exist in many (most?) states.
At-will employment doesn't mean the employer gets to do whatever they please.