Zeman v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

John Zeman, a former Twitter employee, filed a putative collective and class action against Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. He alleged age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. He claimed that Twitter discriminated against him and other employees aged 50 or older during a reduction in force and that X Corp. had successor liability for Twitter’s alleged acts.

The first amended complaint alleged that Zeman worked as Senior Manager, Communications; that he was notified of his layoff in November 2022 and officially separated from Twitter in February 2023; and that his performance met the company’s expectations. It also alleged that older employees were laid off at a higher rate than younger employees during the reduction in force. According to the complaint, approximately 2,686 of Twitter’s 4,964 employees were laid off on November 4, 2022, including approximately 60 percent of employees aged 50 or older and 54 percent of employees under age 50.

Twitter conducted a reduction in force after Elon Musk’s purchase of the company. Zeman alleged that the layoff decisions were made hurriedly, with little attention to employees’ performance, qualifications, experience, or abilities, and that a small group of managers made most of the initial decisions under Musk’s supervision. He also alleged that the discrimination was willful and cited a statement Musk made in a 2022 interview. The court did not need to decide whether that statement supported an inference of intentional discrimination because it found the other allegations sufficient.

Prior Proceedings and Legal Standard

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Twitter’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. It dismissed Zeman’s disparate-treatment claim with leave to amend, explaining that he had not alleged facts supporting causation, including facts about his performance and whether younger employees were similarly situated.

The defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true and asks whether they plausibly support relief. The court also granted defendants’ request to take judicial notice of documents attached to their motion.

Disparate Treatment

Disparate treatment means intentional discrimination. The court explained that claims under both the federal age-discrimination law and the New York law require age to be the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. At the pleading stage, however, a plaintiff does not have to prove a full initial case of discrimination. The plaintiff must allege enough nonconclusory facts to plausibly connect the adverse action to discrimination.

The court found Zeman’s amended allegations sufficient. He alleged that his performance met Twitter’s expectations, that he performed as well as or better than younger employees who were retained, and that layoff decisions were made with little regard for performance or qualifications. He also alleged that employees aged 50 or older were laid off at a higher rate than younger employees. The court concluded that these allegations, considered together, plausibly supported a claim of intentional age discrimination.

The court stated that Zeman would need more evidence to prove the case at summary judgment or trial, but that the allegations were adequate at the pleading stage. It also held that the statistical allegations, although likely insufficient by themselves to establish intentional discrimination, strengthened the plausibility of the claim.

Standing and Proposed Class

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury caused by the defendant’s conduct that a court can remedy. Twitter argued that Zeman could not pursue claims for employees who separated after November 4, 2022, or who left for reasons other than the November 4 reduction in force, because he did not suffer the same injuries.

The court rejected dismissal on that basis as premature. Zeman challenged the reduction in force as a continuing event involving layoffs before, on, and after November 4, 2022. He alleged that the reduction in force decisions were based on age and that the proposed class covered employees who lost their jobs after Musk took control of Twitter. The court noted that the proposed class was broad and could later be narrowed after discovery, but held that striking the class allegations or dismissing on standing grounds at this stage was premature.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The opinion therefore left Zeman’s pleaded age-discrimination and related class and collective-action allegations in the case at this stage. The ruling did not decide whether Zeman will ultimately prove discrimination or whether a class or collective action will be certified.