#legal

There’s a clause in the severance that states “you can not work for any competitor with in 12 months of accepting”. This seems highly unfair after a whole career in wireless. What an I supposed to do? Finds a completely different field and forget my years of experience? That’s so unfair… take the money and shut up or starve while you look for work!

Salary workers…. Did you get your post increase in January 1st?
WA state minimum wage went up meaning the minimum a salary worker can make in WA state as of Jan 1 2026 raised to $80,168.40 annually. It’s weird the focus was on layoffs and we didn’t get our increase
I will be contacting a lawyer and LNI

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62513869/Avaya_LLC_v_ConvergeOne,_Inc

A consultant with attorneys would gain traction if they were able to determine how many “needs improvements” were handed out in prior years vs 2025 reviews. If the number increased dramatically, then can’t an argument be made that this is their attempt to term employees for they don’t have to pay out severance? I know a person who has been with the company over 20 years and never received an NI before until this year.

#stayfree a buddy if mine got laid off and took a bunch of his personal files while now tmobile is charging her with stealing company data. She's freaking out stay free everyone

Do not sign anything, hire lawyer right away!

Ex-Schwabbie here. If you are dissatisfied with work conditions, pay, treatment from leadership I would highly encourage you to check out the NLRA. It gives private sector non-supervisory employees the right to discuss such issues on social media, teams, a huddle, or even a screen saver. These are rights guaranteed regardless if you are part of a union or not. Check out the definitions of concerted activity. You have the right to bring up these questions and concerns to your leaders. If they retaliate then you have yourself a very strong legal case. Retaliation includes your work (phone calls) being more scrutinized than that of your peers. There is a reason Schwab doesn't train you on the NLRA.

Hi, all. I was wondering if BNY discloses reasons for termination to a new employer (also a bank) during the background check. I was told that legally previous employer can only share / verify dates of employment and title. But is there a possibility of this information being shared whether it's by phone or some type of system? Thank you.

So, in 2012, Citibank paid $158.3 million to settle federal allegations tied to defective FHA loans. In the DOJ’s complaint is a line that still matters. In 2010, Ross Leckie, then a senior leader at CitiMortgage, told staff to “drive this rate down by brute force” to meet a 5% defect target, even as quality-control teams flagged serious loan problems. The goal wasn’t fixing defects. It was fixing the number. That email is quoted in a federal complaint.
Today, the same individual is a Vice President at Fannie Mae. This isn’t about criminal charges. It’s about leadership judgment, tone, and culture.
“Drive it down by brute force” isn’t just a bad line. It reflects a culture where optics beat substance and targets beat controls. That culture is exactly what regulators, taxpayers, and markets expect GSEs to leave behind. It also raises an unavoidable question:
If defect rates were something to be pushed down rather than examined, what else could be getting massaged, minimized, or buried?
This is how systemic failures form. Not from one bad loan, but from leadership that treats controls as obstacles instead of safeguards.
FHFA talks about fraud prevention and data integrity. Culture change gets mentioned a lot too. But culture doesn’t change through training decks or rewritten policies. It changes when leadership changes. Leadership overhaul isn’t about punishment. It’s about credibility. It’s about signaling that the old way of protecting metrics, protecting reputations, and protecting insiders is over.
Because until leadership changes, the culture won’t. And until the culture changes, the same question will linger:
If they were willing to “drive it down by brute force” then, what are they driving down now?
If the culture is broken, the fix starts at the top. Paper trails don’t disappear.
And neither do patterns.

Don’t forget the law in NJ protects you from mass layoffs of 50 or more employing a 90 day period.

The off made by the company to choose to move to another location and forgo severance is not legal in the state of Nj.

If they offer you 18 months of employment when agreeing to move and you decide to stay, they’ll still owe must pay your severance regardless.

Tell them yes you will move. Work the time offered while interviewing.

When the time comes, tell them they still owe you severance per NJ state law. If they refuse, hire an attorney.

With the uncertainty within the federal sector and new PEGA trial, how soon before layoffs are announced?

Does the board face any legal risk given that they haven't acted in the best interest of the company?

Shareholders seek legal advice on the fairness of bd deal to their stock.merger shifted out to July.batra trying to go it alone is going to backfire on a disastrous merger.

https://www.wealthmanagement.com/regulation-compliance/federal-court-sanctions-envestnet-for-destroying-evidence-in-trade-secrets-case

What’s the culture in the legal department?

Anyone look at their upcoming paystub yet? The way they calculated their fuzzy math on 27 pay periods is they reduced the wage Rate. Is this legal? It’s like we all got a demotion. Unless you survive to 2027 to get the catch up payment. I’ve never seen a company handle things like this before. Usually, they catch you up in the same year and do it in a month that has five Fridays. I’m sorry there is zero way you could make it make sense except that this is a way to leverage our money for their pockets. Completely demotivated to ever go that extra mile again at this company,

FYSA: Mr. Schulman, H-1B visa price hike deemed lawful by federal judge.

A federal judge has rejected a challenge to the White House's proposed $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas. The court ruled the price increase is lawful, citing the president's "broad statutory authority." Separately, the Trump administration announced it will end the lottery-based work visa system in favor of a new weighted selection process. Officials claim the changes will prioritize higher-paid, higher-skilled applicants. The updates follow months of shifting guidance on fees and restrictions tied to the visa program, which is widely used by technology companies to hire foreign talent.

Looks like if Judge Casey Pitts grants the motion for Hold separate order on Monday, the sales day 1 program (go live scheduled for Jan 2) specifically the effort to combine both companies sales data into one tool would be immediately frozen. The companies would be legally prohibited from scrambling of the eggs. Merry Christmas.

This is yet another scary action against longtime customers.

https://cloudinfra.blog/broadcom-vs-allstate-how-vmware-customers-became-legal-targets-and-why-delaying-an-exit-is-risky/

Wells Fargo & Co was sued by a former manager who says he was fired for pushing the bank to create a more diverse workforce and objecting to its practice of interviewing minority applicants for jobs that were already filled.

Joseph Bruno claims in the lawsuit filed Thursday he tried for years — and often failed — to persuade the bank’s executives to live up to the company’s stated diversity and inclusion goals.

He was the first person to publicly claim in 2022 that Wells Fargo had been conducting sham interviews of minority candidates. The bank did this, he said, so executives could say they were making concrete efforts to diversify its workforce.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-19/wells-fargo-sued-by-ex-manager-who-said-bank-faked-diversity?embedded-checkout=true

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/paying-remote-workers-less-may-heighten-legal-risks

"Paying remote workers less than in-person workers for performing the same work could increase the risk of discrimination claims."

"Telework policies that tie lower pay to remote work may disproportionately affect women, caregivers, and employees with disabilities, potentially raising the risk of equal pay and disparate impact lawsuits."

"Courts and regulators increasingly expect individualized assessments of job functions, consistent application of policies, and rigorous documentation of legitimate business reasons for paying certain workers less than others in similar jobs. Without data-driven and legally sound analysis, employers could unintentionally adopt telework policies that are difficult to defend in court."

"Reducing pay for exempt employees who work remotely could jeopardize their exempt status in certain situations."

The Trump administration appealed a judge’s ruling that it illegally froze more than $2 billion in research funding to punish Harvard University for refusing to comply with a host of demands from the federal government.

US lawyers filed a notice of appeal on Thursday, more than three months after US District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration had violated Harvard’s free-speech and due-process rights.

https://www.ndtvprofit.com/world/us-appeals-harvard-court-victory-on-2-billion-funding-freeze

Here is a breakdown of the key issues you've described and whether they are likely to have legal merit:
⚖️ Legal Merit of the Complaints:
It is highly unlikely that either of the actions described—the performance rating changes or the salary range consolidation—is illegal on its own, especially in the context of general U.S. employment law (which applies unless a specific country or state is mentioned).

1. The Low Performance Ratings ("Forced Distribution")
   • The Law: In the U.S., the vast majority of employment is at-will. This means an employer can generally modify an employee's job duties, compensation, or even terminate them for any reason that is not illegal (i.e., not discriminatory).
   • Performance Reviews: Companies are legally allowed to change how they evaluate performance, introduce "forced distribution" (where a certain percentage must receive low ratings), and enforce stricter standards, even if it leads to ratings that employees feel are unfair or unexpected.
   • The Only Legal Challenge (Discrimination): A performance rating only becomes a potential legal issue if it can be proven that the rating was given based on illegal discrimination (e.g., race, gender, age, religion, disability, etc.) or in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity (like whistleblowing or reporting harassment).
   • The fact that many people are getting low ratings for the first time suggests a change in company policy, not necessarily individual illegal discrimination. For a lawsuit to succeed, a lawyer would need to show a pattern of discrimination against a protected class (e.g., "Only women received the 'Needs Improvement' rating," or "The rating was given right after I filed a formal complaint").
   • Conclusion: Being unhappy with a rating, or even feeling it was unfair, is generally not a legal issue.
2. Consolidating Salary Ranges for Remote Employees
   • The Law: Employers are free to set, change, and consolidate salary ranges and structures. They can decide to use a single, consistent salary range for all remote employees, regardless of the employee's specific location, even if some employees were previously in a higher, location-based range.
   • The Only Legal Challenge (Pay Equity): The consolidation itself is not illegal. However, the resulting salaries would still need to comply with Equal Pay laws. These laws require that employees performing substantially similar work receive equal pay, regardless of s-x (or, in some states, other protected characteristics), unless the difference is based on a factor other than s-x (like seniority, merit, or a geographical pay difference).
   • In your case, the company is moving toward more consistency, which generally reduces pay equity risk based on location differences, not increases it.
   • Conclusion: The consolidation is a standard business decision regarding compensation structure and is generally not illegal.
     📝 The Importance of Documentation
     While the actions are likely legal, the advice to document everything is still very sound advice.
   • For the Employee: Documentation helps establish a clear timeline and the company's reasoning. If an employee is eventually terminated, this documentation could be crucial evidence if they believe they have grounds for a lawsuit (i.e., if they can show the ratings were pretext for a discriminatory or retaliatory firing).
   • What to Document:
   • The New Rating: The exact rating, the written feedback, and any meetings where it was discussed.
   • Prior Performance: Previous high ratings, positive emails, and concrete examples of work that exceeded expectations before the change.
   • The Salary Change: The communication about the new salary band and how it was communicated.
   • The Thread: The general timeline and tenor of the complaints from peers.
     💡 Summary for the Thread
     Based on general U.S. employment law:
   • The actions are likely legal. Companies have wide latitude to change performance review systems and compensation structures.
   • A lawsuit would require proof of illegal discrimination or retaliation. General unfairness or bad management is not grounds for a legal case.
   • Documentation is still smart. It protects the employee by creating an evidence trail should they need to challenge the company on legitimate grounds (like discrimination) in the future.
     The best next steps for people on the thread would be to research the specific employment laws in their state and, if they suspect their individual rating or pay was based on an illegal factor like race, gender, or religion, then they should consult with an employment attorney.

Xerox-Lexmark Sue Trump Over Controversial Tariffs: The Battle for Refunds. (find it!)

Everyone knows they are making up bogus performance reviews and attempting to fire people with little to no severance based on said bogus reviews. I no longer work there but still in close contact with many. I was told by legal counsel the made up bogus reviews themselves while beyond unethical, not technically illegal. I would be curious if anyone else has had success legally fighting them on that basis alone? Outside of my curiosity, any information may help others. I went after them based on protected class issues that are illegal - discrimination, retaliation, etc. That worked. They wrote me a check for a year within 2 months. They caved easily. No effective internal counsel whatsoever. They were all fired too so they farm out to junior staff at Reed Smith. The whole thing is disgusting but nothing we can do to change it other than keeping one another informed. Maybe will change someday when legal action is so frequent becomes untenable for them but don’t hold your breath for now. To all of my friends, former colleagues, and to those of you I don’t know who still work there, I sincerely wish you all the best.

Make sure you take the antitrust training so you can learn how to do it right. It could be Trump is trying to milk the family for more donations, but if you have been paying attention to headlines Cargill has been caught fixing beef, turkey, wages over the past decade or so. All of these matters led to settlements, therefore never really ‘caught’, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. ($32.5M, $32.5M, $29.75M respectively) Even McDonalds brought a suit earlier this year, the pride and joy customer, I mean ‘partner’. Don’t forget the hiring discrimination settlement for $2.2M beginning of this year.

Minnesota Public Radio

November 10th, 2025

Wayzata-based Cargill is one of four meatpacking giants accused by President Donald Trump of collusion, price fixing and manipulation.

“For too long, a handful of giant meat packers have squeezed America’s cattle producers, shrunk herds, and jacked up prices at the grocery store,” a White House press release said.

President Trump previously took to social media on Friday to order an investigation into Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS and National Beef. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation was underway at the Department of Justice.

Cargill did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Meat Institute, a trade group representing meat and poultry processors, said beef packers have been losing money.

“For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a press release.

The supply of cattle is at its lowest level in decades, while demand for beef is rising.

President Donald Trump previously announced a quadrupling of Argentine beef imports to potentially lower beef prices, a move that’s been largely denounced by American producers.

The White House press release said the investigation, though, could show that four meatpacking giants’ apparent monopoly has driven up consumer prices.

“This investigation will root out any illegal collusion, restore fair competition, and protect our food security,” the press release said.

But the Meat Institute’s Potts said the industry is already heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent. She added that beef packers and cattle producers rely on one another.

“The entire beef value chain is strongest when supply is balanced by demand,” Potts said. “Beef packers remain committed to ensuring safe, delicious and nutrient-dense beef remains affordable to American families who rely on its nourishment.”

Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef Packing Co. have often been dubbed as the “Big Four.” Together, they sla-ghter over 80 percent of U.S. cattle meant for meat cuts, according to Reuters. That amount of control has often led to discontent among ranchers.

“We agree — American ranchers aren't to blame for high beef prices,” the National Farmers Union said in a social media post. “It’s time to go after the big four meatpackers who dominate the beef industry, driving up prices for consumers and pushing family farmers and ranchers to the brink.”

However, the United States Cattlemen’s Association said on social media that while it’s appreciative of the Trump Administration’s scrutiny of the agriculture industry, there may be a different reason why beef prices are higher.

“USCA will continue to state that beef prices in the grocery store are not too high,” the association said. “Prices are a direct reflection of consumer demand — consumers want U.S. beef.”

Received settlement check in the mail for the Huffman et al vs centene lawsuit...anyone else

Ukrainian families sue Intel, AMD, and Texas Instruments for chips found in Russian missiles that ki-led their children

https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/12/11/intel-amd-texas-instruments-lawsuit-chips-russian-missiles-ukraine/

I don’t think it’s legally allowed, but checking just in case.

I would like to bring to your attention concerns regarding leadership practices and workplace conduct that may require investigation. There appear to be patterns of behavior that could potentially expose the organization to significant legal and financial liability.

Specifically, there are allegations of:

• Management practices that may not align with professional standards
• Possible involvement of Human Resources in matters that warrant review
• Concerns about workplace monitoring and external consultancy activities

If you have experienced similar concerns, I recommend documenting your experiences and considering whether to consult with colleagues or seek appropriate guidance through proper channels. Collective action through established procedures may be warranted to address these workplace issues and offer you better protection.

I encourage anyone affected to follow appropriate protocols for reporting workplace concerns through private legal counselling, private advocacy groups or governmental organizations. This includes refraining from contacting HR or using the whistleblower hotline. They will identify the most traumatic method to attribute responsibility back to you.

Over and out

Folks laughed at me when I warned my coworkers that FISV was a $60 stock dressed up as a $230 fantasy after the NYSE move. The signs were obvious: manipulated optics, a dying point-of-sale market, hemorrhaging top talent from core banking, and an obsession with squeezing every last accounting trick to fake financial health. Fast-forward to today, the lipstick finally wore off. I had hopes for Mike, but his decisions speak for themselves: he’s following accountants instead of customers, chasing short-term numbers instead of long-term stability. Infinite Group is nothing more than a payroll-tax dodge to inflate EBITDA, a temporary illusion that collapses once the tax tools run out. By 2026, they’ll have nothing left to hide behind. This stock is heading to $30. As someone from a family of attorneys, I’m stunned no employee has sued for blatant misclassification designed to dodge IRS obligations. It’s astonishing they’ve gotten away with it this long.

As for Ryan C, don’t insult your associates by stating forming strategic alliance with infinite for best practices. Heck, many don’t know who they work for and who their manager is just a sweat shop, as long as the timesheet is submitted by Friday.

On 12/5 U.S. court rules Cognizant’s H-1B practices unlawfully harmed non-Indian workers and disproportionately displaced American employees. No way anyone could have seen that coming!

First, a federal judge in California blocked the State Department from laying off about 250 employees, many of them foreign service officers (FSOs).

Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order, saying the unions that filed suit were likely to prevail on their claim that the cuts violate federal law. The State Department originally announced the layoffs in July, but since FSOs are given a required 120 days’ notice, they were not let go during the shutdown. The State Department says the layoff protections only apply to notices that went out starting October 1, 2025.

https://www.fedmanager.com/news/workforce-updates-layoffs-halted-at-last-minute-telework-controversy-erupts

I was employed with Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) for approximately 26 years. Throughout my tenure, I remained in good standing with the company and maintained a consistent performance history..

During the first nine months of this year, I reported to a different manager than my current one. I completed both a beginning-of-year performance review and a mid-year performance review under this manager. In both reviews, my performance met expectations, and I was never advised of any performance concerns, deficiencies, or behavioral issues. I did not receive any verbal or written warnings, disciplinary notices, or improvement plans during that time.

My manager specifically told me that I met expectations and that he had spoken with colleagues with whom I worked directly. He stated that no negative feedback had been reported regarding my work or workplace behavior. At no time was I made aware of any issues that might jeopardize my employment. There was no documentation provided to me demonstrating poor performance or any other cause for termination.

Without prior notice, I was informed that my employment was being terminated. I was immediately instructed that I did not need to return to work for the remainder of December, and that all of my system and workplace access was removed at that same time. I was not provided with any explanation or supporting documentation demonstrating cause for termination or identifying any violations or performance concerns.

I was then told that I would receive a separation agreement by email and that I would need to sign this document in order to receive additional severance pay. Specifically, I was informed that if I signed the agreement — which includes a waiver of rights — I would receive an additional sixty (60) days of pay covering the months of January and February. I was told that if I did not sign the agreement and waive my rights, I would not receive this additional compensation.

At the time of termination, I had no pending disciplinary matters, no documented poor performance, and no warning of potential job loss. I was terminated abruptly after more than two decades of continuous service, without explanation, documentation, or an opportunity to address any alleged issues. I was effectively presented with a condition where I must waive my legal rights in order to receive severance compensation following an unexpected termination.

I am currently seeking legal representation from an employment attorney or firm that has experience representing former BNY Mellon employees or handling similar wrongful-termination and severance-rights cases involving large financial institutions. I am specifically looking for counsel who has previously dealt with situations involving long-tenured employees terminated without cause and asked to sign separation agreements to obtain severance pay.

The French cable operator behaves like a slow-motion corporate pratfall that Inspector Clouseau himself would applaud? Every time I turn away, they slip on another banana peel, fall down an elevator shaft, and somehow manage to set the building on fire on the way down.
The Case: Does your dog bite?
Altice USA has filed an antitrust lawsuit against several major lenders including Apolo Capital, Ares Management and BlackRock accusing them of forming a cartel that has frozen the company out of the credit markets.
Let me restate this:
A company buried in debt is suing lenders because the lenders...don't want to lend it more money. A Decade of French Stewardship:
Altice didn't just show up one day.
They bought Suddenlink and Cablevision a decade ago, and then managed it with the precision and discipline of a French road crew on strike.
The French love of hierarchy, bureaucracy, and central planning collided with two gritty American cable operators and the result was...this.
Ten years of shrugging, hand-waving, and "we will study zee matter carefully," all while the infrastructure aged like Camembert left out in August.
Now, after torching the balance sheet and alienating customers, Altice has concluded that the real problem is...the finance bros.

Company being sued by CT AG for misleading advertising, failure to deliver speeds and allegedly fraudulent fees charges to customers. IS NY NEXT?

Is LBT going to defend this person at all cost ?

A group of US state AGs requested a hold separate motion to block/pause further integration while court reviews the deal. Hearing scheduled for early Jan. What would this mean considering how far the integration already is?