X, formerly recognized as Twitter, is currently confronting a total of 2,200 arbitration proceedings initiated by former employees subsequent to Elon Musk's assumption of control over the company. This transition brought about significant alterations, including workforce reductions and extensive operational changes. The sheer volume of these cases necessitates filing fees, potentially amounting to $3.5 million.
These arbitration figures recently surfaced in a fresh legal submission on Monday, within the context of a lawsuit filed in a Delaware district court. The lawsuit is titled Chris Woodfield v. Twitter, X Corp., and Elon Musk (Case No. 1:23-cv-780-CFC).
Woodfield, a former senior staff network engineer who served at Twitter's Seattle office, alleges in his complaint that Musk's rebranded Twitter (now referred to as X) had made assurances but failed to honor his severance payment. Subsequently, the company's delay in covering the necessary fees for JAMS arbitration system disrupted alternative dispute resolution.
JAMS' official site stipulates that "For two-party matters, the Filing Fee is $2,000," and that "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 that this fundamental fee applies uniformly across X's 2,200 arbitration cases, the cumulative amount approaches $3.5 million, with the possibility of additional charges.
The company's legal representatives argue that there was no compulsion for employees to seek conflict resolution through arbitration, thereby absolving them from covering the lion's share of filing fees.
Concurrently, Woodfield and others in analogous situations are striving to exit arbitration proceedings and relocate their cases to a trial setting.
Numerous major corporations mandate their employees to consent to arbitration agreements upon recruitment, wherever it is legally feasible. This condition implies that, to voice their grievances in an open court—a platform that generates a public record—employees must first secure an exception from a judge.
Detractors perceive arbitration as a concealed framework that impedes employees and potential hires from comprehending how companies manage their personnel and the outcomes of preceding, related instances.
Proponents endorse arbitration as an expedient method for corporations and employees to address disputes without placing a financial burden on employees for substantial legal fees, particularly in the event of an unfavorable ruling.
The litigation filed by Woodfield against Musk's X Corp. mirrors another collective action filed in a federal court in San Francisco.
In the case of Ma v. Twitter, located in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-3301), former Musk-era Twitter employees claim that the company postponed no fewer than 891 arbitration cases by neglecting to remit the obligatory filing fees. This transpired after the company compelled employees to embrace arbitration as a means of dispute resolution in exchange for severance packages.
Comments