Thread regarding Optum layoffs

and at the bottom of the page when you signed on i bet here is in fine print we reserve the right to change the terms without notice at any time

@ef yes, MN is at will state in terms of employment rights and adjusting for business needs, however, not disclosing attrition risk- and this is a HUGE one- is basically giving stakeholders an incomplete picture. If leadership knows a big chunk of employees might quit—because of policy changes, morale issues, or whatever—but doesn’t say anything, it makes the company look more stable than it really is. That hides the true costs (like recruiting, training, lost productivity) and misrepresents the company’s risk profile. In the end, it’s misleading because people can’t make informed decisions when key risks are being left out.

The fine print is they can assign you to do anything for business need . But yes, this company is full of bait and switch tactics termed as " innovation" The most dishonest company ever. Gaslighting is rampant . " other ppl will get a license in any state we ask " " other ppl will travel anywhere for as long as we ask "

@av or anonymously leak details of what is happening to the media so they can do their own investigation. Maybe the exposure would get other federal agencies interested in doing their own investigation. Changing people’s job description and using coercion to get people to comply is manipulative and unethical. Surely someone would be interested in the story.

Someone should provide this information to the media. Air this dirty laundry. It is disgusting how certain employees are required while others aren’t. every meeting/ call I’m on involves atleast 50% of people in other states or countries. The people in the office never physically come together for the meetings either. They join via teams from desks.

@a9 I sure hope there aren’t mass resignations after this forced RTO order - gosh that would open the company to risk of having materially misled investors by failing to disclose the new workforce policy (posed as “collaboration” but with many going into office with no team, nearly FT, after being hired on as telecommuters - not as hybrid employees). Really hope that’s not the case here.

@OP

I wonder if this would apply, worth digging into.

Why the SEC Would Care

Public companies are required to be truthful in their:
• 10-K and 10-Q filings (annual/quarterly reports)
• Risk factor disclosures
• Management discussion & analysis (MD&A) sections
• Workforce metrics and ESG reporting

If UHG/Optum:
• Advertised roles as full-time telecommute (a material hiring promise), then drastically changed terms (4 days in office, badge tracking, forced attrition),
• Structured the policy to push out local employees to avoid severance obligations,
• Did not disclose this risk to investors (i.e., potential mass resignations, lawsuits, compliance exposure), that could be considered misrepresentation, omission of material fact, or fraud under securities law.

There is no mention of these disclosures in their 10 K or 10 Q risk disclosures, if that is in fact, the intent.

@a5 Even in an at-will state, when an employer imposes changes so unreasonable (hired FT telecommute, asked to come in 4 days/week) or selectively applied (within an arbitrary 30 min commute time), that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, it could still be challenged as constructive dismissal.

@a5 well I don’t agree that this is a strong discrimination case I do feel like it is a strong constructive dismissal case.

Optum doesn’t come out and fire people directly, but instead changes the terms of the job so much that employees feel they have no choice but to quit. Courts often treat that as the same thing as being terminated, because it isn’t truly voluntary.

Employees here were hired as full-time telecommuters with teams based in other states. Forcing those same employees into the office four days a week—just to sit alone without their team—isn’t collaboration, it’s a fundamental change to the job they accepted. And when that policy is only applied to people within a certain radius of the office, it creates unequal conditions between groups of employees.

That combination—bait-and-switch on job terms plus selective enforcement—fits the very definition of constructive dismissal. It’s less about collaboration and more about pressuring people to leave so the company doesn’t have to go through formal layoffs or pay severance.

@OP and others...
We are all employees at will. The company can impose any rules around workplace that it wishes. It is not discrimination it is policy. There are plenty of things to hate about this company, but this is a argument that carries no water. RTO has nothing to do with trying to force people out, it's because of hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities that sat empty. RTO is something that's being implemented across all industries and government. So as much as folks may not like it, it's kind of just too bad, do it or quit, or another option is to ignore it and face the consequences. So in summary, there's nothing discriminatory about it or the layoffs of selected employees.

@a3 It’s not quite right to say that discrimination law only applies to race. Yes, many of the earliest laws—like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—were passed in response to racial discrimination, but the legal definition of discrimination is much broader.

Discrimination simply means treating someone less favorably than others because of a characteristic or condition that isn’t job-related (proximity to office). Federal and state laws protect employees not only on the basis of race, but also s-x, age, disability, religion, national origin, and—in some jurisdictions—things like marital or caregiver status. Even when the law doesn’t spell out every possible category, courts also look at whether a company’s rule has a disparate impact on a group of people. That means: if a seemingly neutral rule ends up unfairly burdening one group compared to others, it can still be unlawful.

Requiring only employees who live within 30 minutes of the office to come in is a textbook example of disparate treatment. You’re drawing a line between two groups of workers who were all hired as “remote,” and imposing harsher requirements only on one group—not because of their performance or qualifications, but solely because of where they live. That’s unequal treatment. Whether you call it geographic discrimination, proximity bias, or unequal terms and conditions of employment, it’s still a policy that treats some employees worse than others for reasons unrelated to their actual job duties.

So no, this isn’t about trying to stretch a “race-only” law. It’s about applying the principle of discrimination law—preventing employers from creating arbitrary rules that punish one class of employees over another—to a new but very real situation.

I mean I hate the RTO mandate and think it's out of sheer malice by the company towards its employees, but wouldn't it be argued that the spirit of the law is intended for things such as on basis of race, ethnicity, etc.? Unless people within close proximity of the office are also of another group such as a certain social class, I feel like this would just get thrown out.

Business necessity would be hard to prove since if it's to make sure data is being handled properly, why the restriction? And the less discriminatory option would be none or even all employees have to come in. But I'm not sure this would even come to that.

Well let’s get this party started then.