If nobody can point to a case where multiple folks are in the same situation but not all are asked to relocate then we can't say it's a practice of targeted attrition.
If there is indeed evidence of relocation as attrition, how does the practice fair legally?
I am a former employee - worked in Merrimack 1/2 of the team was told that they needed to relocate to NC , had the option of looking for another position ar fidelity or get a severance. While they got a generous relocation package - it was quite awkward for those who were under the same manager / same job title not impacted. To further add insult to injury, some people were let go in a layoff a few years after the relocation. So this reshuffling and relocating, sadly, is not new. For some, it worked out very well as they are still with the firm 15 years later. It's like a tornado if you're sitting in the wrong seat you get whacked - layoffs are like this too
Fidelity is violating a dozen of its own ethics policy of workplace harassment by pushing these BS attrition tactics.
If an employee is attending all their connect weeks without any issue and also present in office on non connect weeks, hitting all their KPI's
There is no way in he-l they should be told "your position is being moved from the state you are in".
It's simply a targeted attrition tactic .
I am waiting until this turns out to be a major class action lawsuit against these bottom dwelling so called corporate CIO's who can't fu--ing find a life outside of fidelity but are so he-l bent in making lives miserable for their own associates.
Believe me, the lawyers at fido have already examined the legality of whatever is happening with relocations. It would be an uphill battle for sure, to fight against the corporation with at-will employment laws as they stand. Best suggestion is to never ever relocate and get your resume in order.