Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

None of the “logic” in OPs post holds.

If a company exits a location, it doesn’t matter if there’s someone (or many someones) with ADA disability. What matters is that the people with disabilities aren’t treated differently than those without a disability. So if everyone remote >40 miles from an office is displaced… no discrimination. If everyone working in a specific city is displaced… no discrimination.

There's likely no legal remedy here. Shart is destroying the domestic workforce and there's nothing anyone but the BOD can do about it. Breaking news: this is all the BODs idea, so no, they won't intervene.

There is no domestic location strategy other than Hudson Yards being the ivory tower of douche bags that it is. Everything else goes. I&P employees will do all the grunt work, often poorly. All of us get downsized.

Any Plaintiff would be saddled with the burden of proof. I don’t know of anyone who had accommodations who has been let go. They were all normies. Don’t confuse that with me claiming none have been let go. Just goes to prove a point that it just needs to be a mix of people then the claim of discrimination cannot be substantiated.

The other component is how all job posts, that i've seen, require you to be in a hub, so job change, and job promotion opportunity is out the window. I've heard, mgrs are even being told they cannot promote within, if not in a hub location.

They could in theory remove job A, and hire for job B (same job different title), and only allow hub location people to apply, and now what do you do?

Sadly at the same time WF is hiring leadership from Chase and allowing them to live in non-hub locations. I guess that only applies to everyone else...

Protections are for reasons and being let go because of Said reasons. When you lay off an entire group based on locations, not illegal. Reasonable accommodations for disabilities etc. Not a requirement and no legal ground to stand on. If the glove don't fit....

To @mlx+1q49HMPv

Very fair analysis. Though I do wonder about disparate impact. In theory, you are correct.

However, Charlie does not get the benefit of the doubt with me. I think back to his town hall, when he played stupid about the location strategy. If you need to play d-mb, it doesn't instill confidence everything is above board. And this could not be construed as NPI, by any stretch.

The secret non hub promotion exceptions are a disparity. EEOC only applies within said location strategy.

Perhaps the impacted will join Sloan for the emotional distress claim as the surveys are a bust.

They have been fined billions for consumer and employee abuses in last ten years. Do you think they are concerned about location strategy?!?? That's like a serial felon with 19 felony convictions getting misdemeanor for dui, they don't give AF!!!!!!

Location/Hub strategy is not new in corporate spheres. Other banks have previously executed on such strategies. Your armchair opinion is very debatable.

If a strategy is based on location and is based purely on financial and strategic planning, it should not impact protected classes to any further extent than it impacts non-protected classes. EG - if WF only offered employment to protected classes in certain locations today and a majority of all of those locations were eliminated, that might be grounds to pursue legal remedy. But - if WF was practicing the above - only offering protected classes employment at specfic locations - they would already be exposed to potential discriminatory litigation.

Perhaps I read the OP incorrectly - but it does read as though the potential litigation you suggest is related only to how it impacts said protected classes.

If it's meant to be more holistic, eg targeting specfic employees based on a discriminatory practice - that's not likely to happen. Eliminating higher cost or lower return locations is very much a legitimate business strategy.

In my experience having worked for a company who implemented such a strategy years ago, most employees were not offered relocation options, however some were - and those were usually very high performing employees. I know those who were the most negatively impact felt those choices were discriminatory but they would have had a very hard time taking that to court.

Corporate America stinks for the average employee. We are numbers in a spreadsheet and rarely anything more is considered. On the flip side - its rarely personal or discriminatory when these types of decisions are made.

(former legal strategist - and this is only an opinion based on very limited information)

I don't think I'm privvy hence the "To my knowledge".

All I am saying is what happens in the dark usually comes to light.

With a company as polarizing as Wells, I would think we would overcommunicate and document these things.

If we don't, confusion and disarray commences which will eventually affect our positions due to increased fines, lack of asset expansion etc.

But I'm sure your privvy HR ivory tower is just fine...

"to my knowledge" is the key phrase there OP

What makes you think you are privvy to everything you're talking about?

If the OC has faith in their management ilk to execute against the non-public strategy...good luck with that.

Just takes one sc--w up.

I believe there is a change management approved process. It's just not public.

Nope. The impacted folks might get severance, but if y’all banking or a legal settlement … keep waiting.