[US] ‘X’ facing $3m filing fee bill for 2,200 arbitration cases

X Corp. - the social network known as Twitter before an unpopular rebrand - is facing 2,200 arbitration cases filed by ex-employees after Elon Musk took over the company and made mass layoffs. The filing fees alone for such a volume of cases could reach $3.5 million, CNBC reports.

The arbitration numbers were revealed in a new filing released on August 29 as part of a lawsuit in a Delaware district court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).

Mr Woodfield - a former senior staff network engineer who had worked at Twitter's Seattle office - reportedly alleges in his suit that Twitter (now known as X) had promised and subsequently failed to pay his severance and later delayed alternative dispute resolution by failing to pay the necessary fees required for him to move ahead in the JAMS arbitration system.

According to the website for JAMS, "For two-party matters, the Filing Fee is $2,000," and "For matters based on a clause or agreement that is required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400."

As JAMS determined this basic fee applies across the board to X's 2,200 arbitration cases, the total would amount to around $3.5 million, with other fees to potentially follow.

The company's lawyers have reportedly argued that it did not mandate employees to resolve any issues in arbitration, therefore it should not be responsible for the larger portion of the filing fees.

Mr Woodfield and other ex-Twitter employees in a similar situation are now trying to get out of arbitration and move their cases to trial.

According to previous reporting from CNBC, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so. This means that in order to speak freely in court - where their speech can become part of a public record - workers would first need to obtain an exemption from a judge.

The Woodfield case against Mr Musk's X Corp. shares similarities with another proposed class action filed in a San Francisco federal court.

In that case, Ma v. Twitter, in the Northern District of California (No. 3:23-cv-3301), ex-employees of post-Musk-purchase Twitter reportedly allege that the company delayed at least 891 arbitration cases by failing to pay required filing fees after compelling employees to agree to arbitrate their disputes in exchange for severance.

Source: CNBC

(Links via original reporting)

X Corp. - the social network known as Twitter before an unpopular rebrand - is facing 2,200 arbitration cases filed by ex-employees after Elon Musk took over the company and made mass layoffs. The filing fees alone for such a volume of cases could reach $3.5 million, CNBC reports.

The arbitration numbers were revealed in a new filing released on August 29 as part of a lawsuit in a Delaware district court. The case is Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp. and Elon Musk (No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).

Mr Woodfield - a former senior staff network engineer who had worked at Twitter's Seattle office - reportedly alleges in his suit that Twitter (now known as X) had promised and subsequently failed to pay his severance and later delayed alternative dispute resolution by failing to pay the necessary fees required for him to move ahead in the JAMS arbitration system.

According to the website for JAMS, "For two-party matters, the Filing Fee is $2,000," and "For matters based on a clause or agreement that is required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400."

As JAMS determined this basic fee applies across the board to X's 2,200 arbitration cases, the total would amount to around $3.5 million, with other fees to potentially follow.

The company's lawyers have reportedly argued that it did not mandate employees to resolve any issues in arbitration, therefore it should not be responsible for the larger portion of the filing fees.

Mr Woodfield and other ex-Twitter employees in a similar situation are now trying to get out of arbitration and move their cases to trial.

According to previous reporting from CNBC, many large corporations require workers to sign an arbitration agreement upon employment wherever it is legal to do so. This means that in order to speak freely in court - where their speech can become part of a public record - workers would first need to obtain an exemption from a judge.

The Woodfield case against Mr Musk's X Corp. shares similarities with another proposed class action filed in a San Francisco federal court.

In that case, Ma v. Twitter, in the Northern District of California (No. 3:23-cv-3301), ex-employees of post-Musk-purchase Twitter reportedly allege that the company delayed at least 891 arbitration cases by failing to pay required filing fees after compelling employees to agree to arbitrate their disputes in exchange for severance.

Source: CNBC

(Links via original reporting)