Ex-Twitter Staffer Wins $600K Over Musk’s Click-Yes-Or-Res

Elon Musk’s handling of staff during his 2022 takeover of Twitter has come under fire, with an Irish labor court ruling that his ultimatum email to employees was unreasonable and legally unsound.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that how employees were pushed to make a quick decision regarding their jobs lacked the legal footing necessary to justify dismissals. The court stated that the email failed to give employees adequate notice and created an environment where they were forced into resigning, with no clarity about their employment terms under Musk’s leadership.

In November 2022, Elon Musk emailed Twitter staff, providing them with just 24 hours to decide whether to stay on under new, stricter working conditions or voluntarily resign. The “A Fork in the Road” email urged employees to click “yes” if they wished to remain with the company. If they chose not to, they would receive three months of severance.

The email included Musk’s vision for a more demanding Twitter 2.0, stating, “Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.”

However, an Irish labor court found this approach lacking in fairness and legality. In its 73-page ruling, the court concluded that Musk’s method effectively pressured employees to either accept unknown employment terms or lose their jobs. Notably, the court reviewed the case of Gary Rooney, a senior Twitter executive based in Ireland, who had worked at the company for nine years prior to Musk’s takeover. Rooney argued that his contract required written notice for resignation, not a failure to click a link. The court agreed, ruling Rooney’s dismissal as “unfair.” Instead of the original severance offer of just over $25,000, Twitter (now rebranded as X) was ordered to pay Rooney over $600,000, including $220,000 for future lost earnings.

Rooney’s hesitation to click “yes” stemmed from uncertainty about his benefits and stock options under the new leadership, which were not clearly addressed in Musk’s email. Rooney also voiced his concerns in Slack discussions and tweets, which Twitter tried to use as evidence of his intention to resign. The court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that Rooney’s decision to not agree immediately was justified. WRC adjudicator Michael MacNamee emphasized that “No employee when faced with such a situation could be faulted for refusing to be compelled to give an open-ended unqualified assent to any of the proposals.”

Although 35 employees in Ireland chose not to click “yes” to Musk’s demands, Rooney’s case is one of the few significant victories for laid-off Twitter staff who challenged the fairness of their severance packages. This ruling sets a precedent that may open the door for further claims from other employees who were similarly affected.

X’s director of human resources, Lauren Wegman, defended Twitter’s stance, arguing that Rooney’s contract allowed reasonable changes to its terms and that his failure to engage within the deadline was the reason for his dismissal. Yet, the court rejected this defense, marking a substantial blow to X’s position.

Rooney’s attorney, Barry Kenny, welcomed the decision, stating that the WRC’s ruling made it clear that his client was unfairly dismissed. “It is not okay for Mr. Musk, or indeed any large company, to treat employees in such a manner in this country. The record award reflects the seriousness and the gravity of the case,” he said.

X is expected to appeal the decision. However, the ruling represents a big step in challenging the employment practices under Musk’s leadership.