U.S. District Judge James Donato on Friday ruled that five
former Twitter employees pursuing a proposed class action accusing the company
of failing to give adequate notice before laying them off after its acquisition
by Elon Musk must pursue their claims in private arbitration.
Donato granted Twitter's request to force the five
ex-employees to pursue their claims individually, citing agreements they signed
with the company.
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
The San Francisco judge left for another day "as
warranted by developments in the case" whether the entire class action
lawsuit must be dismissed, though, as he noted three other former Twitter
employees who alleged they had opted out of the company's arbitration agreement
have joined the lawsuit after it was first filed.
The lawyer who represents the plaintiffs, Shannon
Liss-Riordan, said on Monday that she had already filed 300 demands for
arbitration on behalf of former Twitter employees and would likely file
hundreds more.
Those workers all claim they have not received the full
severance package promised by Twitter before Musk took over. Some have also
alleged sex or disability discrimination.
Last year, Donato had ruled that Twitter must notify the
thousands of workers who were laid off after its acquisition by Musk, following
a proposed class action accusing the company of failing to give adequate notice
before terminating them.
The judge said that before asking workers to sign severance
agreements waiving their ability to sue the company, Twitter must give them
"a succinct and plainly worded notice".
Twitter laid off roughly 3,700 employees in early November
in a cost-cutting measure by Musk, and hundreds more subsequently resigned.
In December last year, Twitter was also accused by dozens of
former employees of various legal violations stemming from Musk's takeover of
the company, including targeting women for layoffs and failing to pay promised
severance.
Twitter is also facing at least three complaints filed with
a U.S. labour board claiming workers were fired for criticising the company,
attempting to organise a strike, and other conduct protected by federal labour
law.