Cornet v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

After Twitter laid off a substantial portion of its workforce in early November 2022, Emmanuel Cornet and other named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of Twitter employees. Their second amended complaint alleged violations of the federal and California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification laws, breach of contract, and violations of California employment laws.

Twitter had a pending motion to compel arbitration and strike the class allegations. Twitter also said that employees typically had agreed to arbitration clauses and class-action waivers in their employment agreements.

Issue

The immediate issue was whether Twitter had to give employees notice of the lawsuit before asking them to sign severance agreements containing releases of claims. Plaintiffs requested a protective order requiring that notice. Twitter agreed not to seek releases while the court considered the request.

Reasoning

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d), which permits courts to issue appropriate orders protecting proposed class members and fairly conducting a class action. The court also relied on its general authority to manage cases and regulate communications with potential class members.

The court found that notice was warranted because Twitter intended to offer severance agreements and ask for general releases. Twitter also intended to ask employees to waive California Civil Code section 1542, which protects against releasing certain unknown claims. In the court’s view, employees should know about the pending lawsuit before deciding whether to accept severance containing a general release.

The court rejected Twitter’s argument that arbitration clauses and class-action waivers made notice unnecessary. A release could bar an employee’s claims whether those claims were ultimately heard in court or arbitration. Twitter also did not show that providing notice would impose an undue or unreasonable burden or cause prejudice.

Order

The court directed Twitter to provide notice of the pending case before asking an employee to release legal claims. The parties were directed to complete their discussions and file a proposed notice by December 19, 2022. The notice was to use neutral, objective language understandable to a typical employee.

This order addressed notice and case management; it did not decide the underlying claims, the arbitration motion, or whether the case could proceed as a class action.