Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (SBN 310719)
`(sliss@llrlaw.com)
`THOMAS FOWLER (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`(tfowler@llrlaw.com)
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone:
`(617) 994-5800
`Facsimile:
`(617) 994-5801
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Emmanuel Cornet,
`Justine De Caires, Grae Kindel,
`Alexis Camacho, and Jessica Pan,
`on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-6857
`
`EMMANUEL CORNET, JUSTINE DE
`CAIRES, GRAE KINDEL, ALEXIS
`CAMACHO, AND JESSICA PAN, on behalf
`of themselves and all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1. VIOLATION OF WARN ACT (29
`U.S.C. §§ 2101 ET SEQ.)
`2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
`WARN ACT (CAL. LAB. CODE §§
`1400 ET SEQ.)
`3. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT,
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Emmanuel Cornet, Justine De Caires, Grae Kindel, Alexis Camacho, and Jessica
`
`Pan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, file this Class Action Complaint
`
`against Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) for its violation and anticipated further violation of
`
`the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (the
`
`“WARN Act”), as well as the California WARN Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq. (the
`
`“California WARN Act”).
`
`2.
`
`As described further below, shortly after the company’s purchase by Elon Musk,
`
`during the first week of November 2022, Twitter began a mass layoff. It has been widely
`
`reported that Twitter plans to lay off about 3,700 employees, approximately 50% of its total
`
`workforce. See, e.g., Jon Brodkin, Musk to cut half of Twitter jobs and end remote work for the
`
`rest, report says, ARS TECHNICA (November 3, 2022), https://arstechnica.com/tech-
`
`policy/2022/11/report-musk-to-lay-off-50-of-twitter-staff-reverse-work-from-home-policy/; Kate
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Conger, Elon Musk Begins Layoffs at Twitter, NEW YORK TIMES (November 3, 2022),
`
`16
`
`https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/twitter-layoffs-elon-musk.html?smid=nytcore-
`
`ios-share&referringSource=articleShare; Alex Heath, Elon Musk’s Twitter layoffs are starting,
`
`THE VERGE (November 3, 2022), https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/3/23439802/elon-musks-
`
`twitter-layoffs-start-friday-november-4; Kali Hays, Elon Musk starts layoffs at Twitter
`
`immediately after an email went out saying cuts would start the next day, BUSINESS INSIDER,
`
`https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-at-twitter-begin-night-before-elon-musk-said-they-
`
`would-2022-11.
`
`3.
`
`Twitter began the layoffs with a few employees. For example, on November 1,
`
`2022, Twitter terminated Plaintiff Emmanuel Cornet without providing advanced written
`
`warning, as required by the federal WARN Act and California WARN Act, which require sixty
`
`(60) days advance written notice of a mass layoff.
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`4.
`
`On November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Justine De Caires, Jessica Pan, and Grae Kindel
`
`were locked out of their Twitter accounts, which they understood to signal that they were being
`
`laid off.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs are very concerned that Twitter will continue these layoffs without
`
`providing the requisite notice. News reports have stated that more widespread layoffs will
`
`proceed beginning tomorrow, November 4, 2022.
`
`6.
`
`Another company owned by Elon Musk, Tesla, recently engaged in mass layoffs
`
`without notice. That company attempted to obtain releases from laid off employees without
`
`informing them of their rights under the federal or California WARN Acts. A federal court
`
`subsequently ordered the company to provide employees notice of the claims that had been filed
`
`on their behalf. See Lynch v. Tesla, Inc., 2022 WL 42952953 *6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2022).
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs file this action seeking to ensure that Twitter comply with the law and6
`
`provide the requisite notice or severance payment in connection with the anticipated layoffs and
`
`15
`
`that it not solicit releases of claims of any employees without informing them of the pendency of
`
`16
`
`this action and their right to pursue their claims under the federal or California WARN Act.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs seek immediate injunctive relief, as well as a declaratory judgment
`
`under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, on behalf of themselves and all
`
`similarly situated employees, precluding Twitter from circumventing the requirements of the
`
`WARN Act and the California WARN Act.
`
`3II. PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Emmanuel Cornet is an adult resident of San Francisco, California,
`
`where he worked from January 2021 until his layoff on November 1, 2022.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Justine De Caires is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where
`
`they have worked as an employee of Twitter assigned to Twitter’s office in San Francisco.
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Grae Kindel is an adult resident of Medford, Massachusetts, where they
`
`have worked as an employee of Twitter assigned to Twitter’s office in Cambridge,
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Alexis Camacho is an adult resident of Honolulu, Hawaii, where she has
`
`worked as an employee of Twitter assigned to Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco,
`
`California.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Jessica Pan is an adult resident of Alameda, California, where she has
`
`worked as an employee of Twitter assigned to Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco,
`
`California.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs Cornet, De Caires, Pan, and Kindel bring this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class
`
`action asserting (1) a federal WARN Act claim on behalf of all Twitter employees throughout
`
`the United States who are laid off in a “mass layoff” or “plant closing,” as defined by the WARN
`
`Act, following the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, and who are not given a minimum of sixty
`
`15
`
`(60) days’ written notice of termination and (2) a California WARN Act claim on behalf of all
`
`16
`
`California Twitter employees who are laid off in a “mass layoff” or “plant closing,” as defined
`
`by the California WARN Act, following the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, and who are not
`
`given a minimum of sixty (60) days’ written notice of termination.
`
`15.
`
`All Plaintiffs bring a declaratory judgment claim asking the Court to enjoin
`
`Twitter from violating the federal and California WARN Act and from soliciting releases from
`
`employees who are being laid off without informing them of the pendency of this case and their
`
`rights under those statutes.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in
`
`San Francisco, California.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`17.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5).
`
`18.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over this matter because Twitter is
`
`headquartered in this District and conducts substantial business operations in this District.
`
`19.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’
`
`state law claims, because those claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts with
`
`Plaintiffs’ federal claims.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`20.
`
`Twitter employs thousands of people across the United States. Following the
`
`purchase of the company by Elon Musk, in early November 2022, Twitter initiated what has
`
`been widely reported as a mass layoff of employees at its sites across the country. It has been
`
`widely reported in the media that Twitter’s CEO Elon Musk communicated to Twitter’s staff that
`
`the company plans to eliminate approximately 3,700 of Twitter’s employees, making up about
`
`50% of its total workforce. See, e.g., Jon Brodkin, Musk to cut half of Twitter jobs and end
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`remote work for the rest, report says, ARS TECHNICA (November 3, 2022),
`
`16
`
`https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/report-musk-to-lay-off-50-of-twitter-staff-reverse-
`
`work-from-home-policy/.
`
`21.
`
` Plaintiffs Cornet, De Caires, Camacho, and Pan have been employed in Twitter’s
`
`headquarters in San Francisco, California, and Plaintiff Kindel was employed in Twitter’s office
`
`in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`22.
`
`As an early example of the anticipated mass layoff, on November 1, 2022,
`
`Plaintiff Cornet was notified that his employment was being terminated effective immediately.
`
`Twitter did not provide sixty (60) days advance written notice (or any advance notice at all) to
`
`Plaintiff Cornet of his impending layoff. Nor did Twitter provide any severance pay to Plaintiff
`
`Cornet.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`23.
`
`Although not formally notified of a layoff, or given any advance notice, Plaintiffs
`
`De Caires, Pan, and Kindel were locked out of their company accounts on November 3, 2022.
`
`24.
`
`At all relevant times, Twitter employed 100 or more employees, exclusive of part-
`
`time employees, (i.e., those employees who had worked fewer than 6 of the 12 months prior to
`
`the date notice was required to be given or who had worked fewer than an average of 20 hours
`
`per week during the 90 day period prior to the date notice was required to be given), or employed
`
`100 or more employees who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week exclusive of
`
`hours of overtime within the United States and within California.
`
`25.
`
`These anticipated terminations are expected to result in the loss of employment
`
`for more than 500 employees (excluding part-time employees).
`
`26.
`
`However, Twitter has given no formal written advance notice of these anticipated
`
`layoffs – not sixty (60) days in advance of the terminations, nor as much notice as practicable
`
`under the circumstances.
`
`27.
`
`It has also been reported that California’s Employment Development Department
`
`16
`
`has not received notice of a mass layoff from Twitter. See Kate Conger, Elon Musk Begins
`
`Layoffs at Twitter, NEW YORK TIMES (November 3, 2022),
`
`https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/twitter-layoffs-elon-musk.html?smid=nytcore-
`
`ios-share&referringSource=articleShare.
`
`28.
`
`Elon Musk, who owns Twitter, engaged in similar violations of the WARN Act
`
`and the California WARN Act earlier during the summer of 2022, when another company he
`
`owns, Tesla, engaged in mass layoffs without providing advanced written notice. Several former
`
`Tesla employees brought a suit against Tesla for these violations. See Lynch et al. v. Tesla, Inc.,
`
`Civ. Act. No., 1:22-cv-00597-RP (W.D. Tex.). When informing employees of their layoff, Tesla
`
`sought to obtain full releases of all WARN Act and California WARN Act claims in exchange
`
`for small severance payments of one or two weeks pay (significantly less than the sixty (60) days
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`pay and benefits required to satisfy the WARN Act and the California WARN Act). See Lynch,
`
`2022 WL 4295295, at *1-4. A federal court ruled that Tesla’s conduct was “misleading because
`
`[the separation agreements] fail to inform potential class members of this lawsuit and the rights
`
`that they are potentially giving up under the WARN Act.” Id. at *4.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs here are reasonably concerned that, absent court intervention, Twitter
`
`will engage in similar behavior and seek releases from laid off employees without informing
`
`them of their rights or the pendency of this case. Plaintiffs have therefore brought this complaint
`
`seeking immediate relief to ensure that Twitter does not violate the federal and California
`
`WARN Act and then seek to obtain releases from employees who do not have notice of their
`
`rights or the claims brought here on their behalf.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`Federal WARN Act
`
`At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons have been entitled to
`
`15
`
`the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the federal WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et.
`
`16
`
`seq. 24. Twitter was, and is, subject to the notice and back pay requirements of the federal
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`WARN Act because Twitter is a business enterprise that employed 100 or more employees,
`
`excluding part-time employees, and/or, employed 100 or more employees who in the aggregate
`
`work at least 4,000 hours per week (exclusive of overtime), as defined in the WARN Act. 29
`
`U.S.C. §§ 2101(1)(A) and(B). Twitter is now engaged in conducting mass layoffs without
`
`providing the required notice under the federal WARN Act.
`
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`California WARN Act
`
`At all times material herein, Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons who have worked
`
`26
`
`for Twitter in California have been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`the California WARN Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq. Twitter was, and is, subject to the
`
`notice and back pay requirements of the California WARN Act because Twitter is a business
`
`enterprise that employed 75 or more employees, as defined in the California WARN Act, Cal.
`
`Lab. Code § 1400(a). Twitter is now engaged in conducting mass layoffs without providing the
`
`required notice under the California WARN Act.
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02
`
`
`
`An actual controversy of sufficient immediacy exists between the parties as to the
`
`concern by Plaintiffs that Twitter should be prohibited from circumventing the requirements of
`
`the WARN Act and the California WARN Act by conducting mass layoffs without providing the
`
`required notice and by soliciting the employees it is laying off to sign separation agreements that
`
`release their claims under the WARN Act and/or California WARN Act, without first informing
`
`them of this lawsuit or their rights under those statutes. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
`
`15
`
`and an injunction prohibiting Twitter from engaging in such conduct.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter the following relief:
`
`a. Declare and find that the Defendant has violated the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et
`
`seq. and the California WARN Act, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1400 et seq.
`
`b. Certify a class action and appoint Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent a class of
`
`Twitter employees under Count I who have worked for Twitter anywhere in the
`
`United States and are laid off without required notice, in conjunction with the mass
`
`layoff described herein;
`
`c. Certify a class action and appoint Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent a class of
`
`Twitter employees under Count II who have worked for Twitter in California and are
`
`laid off, without required notice, in conjunction with the mass layoff described herein;
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`d. Enter declaratory relief and an injunction under Count III enjoining Twitter from
`
`violating the WARN Act and/or California WARN Act and from seeking releases of
`
`claims under the WARN Act and/or California WARN Act under claims without
`
`informing employees of the pendency of this lawsuit and their rights under those
`
`statutes.
`
`e. Award compensatory damages, including all expenses and wages owed, in an amount
`
`according to proof;
`
`f. Award pre- and post-judgment interest;
`
`g. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses;
`
`h. Any other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled.
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-SK Document 1 Filed 11/03/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`November 3, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`EMMANUEL CORNET, JUSTINE DE CAIRES,
`GRAE KINDEL, ALEXIS CAMACHO, AND
`JESSICA PAN, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By their attorneys,
`
`
`
`
`
`_/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan____________
`Shannon Liss-Riordan, SBN 310719
`Thomas Fowler (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 994-5800
`Email: sliss@llrlaw.com; tfowler@llrlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`