points by somenameforme 3 days ago | 0 comments
That's very different. That was them rescinding a job offer before a 'real' contract had been signed in something explicitly stating that it was not a contract of employment, and was also fully contingent on them passing a criminal background check - which the applicant failed. So they're losing in both at will, and by the terms of the contract. They still got sued, because people gonna people, but it's not related to a normal Microsoft employment contract.
[–] janalsncm 2 days ago
[–] somenameforme 2 days ago
A Microsoft employee chimed in elsewhere and mentioned that their contract had a clause that they could only be terminated for a set level of compensation, which is exactly what this buyout is offering. At-will, at least as I am using it, implies the ability to terminate a contract by other side without consequence. That is not the case for Microsoft even if they aren't constrained to only for-cause dismissal.
Most American employees are at-will, and the contract in the MSFT lawsuit above was an at-will contract which is why they could be terminated, as you said.
Unless you can provide some other evidence that MSFT employees at not at will, it seems reasonable to believe they are, in which case providing the generous severance they did was not legally required.