Jeff Foust has the story. Doesn’t seem like that big a deal, even if they lose.
2 thoughts on “The Lawsuit Against SpaceX”
That’s California. If the lawsuits get too out of hand, Texas is waiting to take them all in.
California is still, basically, an “at will” employment state in which employers have pretty broad latitude to fire employees for any reason or no reason. There are exceptions that have been enacted over the years, one of which is the advance warning of layoffs thing.
As several noted in their comments on the linked article, there is a good chance SpaceX’s situation doesn’t fall within whatever the legal definition of “layoff” is in the California law. I haven’t looked up the language of the statute at issue (and won’t; I comment on Rand’s blog and others for “fun” and wading through pages and pages of legalspeak is a bit too much like work) but these laws, I’m given to understand, usually only apply to large business downturns the company can see coming – non-renewal of a large government contract, for example. I don’t think these rules typically cover even mass downsizing as a result of sudden, unanticipated loss of business.
SpaceX’s situation seems to be neither of these. Their book of business continues to grow and they haven’t lost any government contracts nor are they likely to. They are, indeed, continuing to hire. I know this because I got a phone call a couple weeks ago from someone at the community college I graduated from awhile back informing me SpaceX was hiring and had asked for info on recent grads in certain fields.
Trying to predict how a lawsuit will finally work out is a mug’s game, especially in a place where the judiciary is as left-addled as it is in California. But I share Rand’s opinion that, even should they lose, SpaceX won’t be materially damaged by this litigation. SpaceX would probably be wiser in future not to do employee evaluations all at once but to spread them out by doing them on, say, hire date anniversaries. That way, even the appearance of a “layoff” doesn’t arise.
That’s California. If the lawsuits get too out of hand, Texas is waiting to take them all in.
California is still, basically, an “at will” employment state in which employers have pretty broad latitude to fire employees for any reason or no reason. There are exceptions that have been enacted over the years, one of which is the advance warning of layoffs thing.
As several noted in their comments on the linked article, there is a good chance SpaceX’s situation doesn’t fall within whatever the legal definition of “layoff” is in the California law. I haven’t looked up the language of the statute at issue (and won’t; I comment on Rand’s blog and others for “fun” and wading through pages and pages of legalspeak is a bit too much like work) but these laws, I’m given to understand, usually only apply to large business downturns the company can see coming – non-renewal of a large government contract, for example. I don’t think these rules typically cover even mass downsizing as a result of sudden, unanticipated loss of business.
SpaceX’s situation seems to be neither of these. Their book of business continues to grow and they haven’t lost any government contracts nor are they likely to. They are, indeed, continuing to hire. I know this because I got a phone call a couple weeks ago from someone at the community college I graduated from awhile back informing me SpaceX was hiring and had asked for info on recent grads in certain fields.
Trying to predict how a lawsuit will finally work out is a mug’s game, especially in a place where the judiciary is as left-addled as it is in California. But I share Rand’s opinion that, even should they lose, SpaceX won’t be materially damaged by this litigation. SpaceX would probably be wiser in future not to do employee evaluations all at once but to spread them out by doing them on, say, hire date anniversaries. That way, even the appearance of a “layoff” doesn’t arise.