- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I’m sure women will be stoked to have Apple relocate them to a state that could kill them.
I’m sure women will be stoked to have Apple relocate them to a state that could kill them.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. This could have the makings of constructive dismissal. Relocate to a place with vastly different legal protections or be fired? Hmm. Since it also would possibly disproportionately affect female employees, I wonder if some discrimination could also come in to play?
Not a lawyer, just spitballing ideas.
If they are offering a relocation package, and it sounds like they are, then this likely doesn’t fall under constructive discharge. Also in CA a constructive discharge lawsuit often only makes you entitled to the same benefits as if you were fired (i.e. severance and unemployment). These guys aren’t being fired for cause so they still qualify for unemployment and the severance deal Apples offering is probably already worth more than many would get in a lawsuit. A lawsuits not gonna force Apple to move the office back.
I don’t know why everyone always jumps straight to “constructive discharge” and “this must be illegal”. Guys, we live in a legal hellscape, Apple may be being shitty but they aren’t doing anything illegal.
No, it’s “move or be laid off”, not fired. There’s a difference. Being laid off means you get unemployment, at least in most states. Quitting or being fired for cause, you don’t. And Apple is giving them a little extra severance package.
Apple is still shit for doing this, because presumably they’re doing it to get rid of people without doing a real team layoff, and because they’re moving to Texas.