Anyone out there who falls under the new notice period requirement leave without fulfilling the entire period? If so, did anything come of it?
9 replies (most recent on top)
the policy does talk about clawing back any vested shares from the last year, but for many, only this weeks award agreements have the notice period language in them, prior years agreements have the language at the time so theoretically they would only be able to claw back 1/3 of the $2k in shares we just got a year from now, any then any vesting tied to the updated language from my next annual bonus which won't start vesting until Feb 2027. from what I understand the courts won't typically allow for retroactive changes to old agreements. Also, for most people subject to the new notice period, it is just a policy and not a contract (as already stated) so likely hard for them to enforce anything. as for why they do this beyond making our lives more miserable, who knows. you could argue it's to make sure they don't perform an ill time severance but unless that would have happened in a normal 2 week notice period it's moot, changing to 30 or 60 days won't change that. And as wanting time to hire someone before you leave, they rarely backfill anymore and when they do they usually don't start the process until long after you have left, so another moot point.
TLDR - if you don't receive RSRs/restricted stock, the ONLY thing that can be enforced by WF is to be marked non-eligible for rehire.
The details:
There's some vague language about pursuing remedies permitted by law - but there are none unless you have an employment contract, which is only done at the OC level (and sometimes at OC+1).
For restricted stock - when you resign, even with sufficient notice, you forfeit any unvested stock.
Clawback of previously vested restricted stock - what they can or can't do is embedded in the terms of your award, which are stored on Equate Plus. Review your grant T&Cs to find out if they can make you repay prior vestings.
Oh no! Will it impact my pension? Kidding. They removed any reason to honor their d-mb policy for the non-execs.
I think this is because it takes forever to make an external hire, and they don’t like us “internals”.
If I leave I am not coming back
Being marked non-rehirable isn't much of a threat. RSRs are the only real punishment they can enact, and most employees don't have much $ there. My guess is, they did this to save severance costs. If they know you're leaving, they won't offer you an ill-timed (for them) severance as they downsize you. It's happened, and will happen a lot more as management is gutted by AI.
if you have an officer title of VP or above and leave voluntarily you have to give notice. 30 days for VP, 60 for exec dir, 90 days above that.
I'd be curious what they can actually get away with especially in right to work states since this isn't a contract and is a change in policy. There is language around clawing back your prior years vested shares, but I think they could only apply that to next year's RSRs given anything from previous years wasn't agreed to. who knows.
What is the new notice period?
Yes and they’re marked as non-rehire eligible. No vested/cashed in RSR’s were needed to be repaid because this individual didn’t have any RSRs, vested or outstanding.
They listed the repurcussions. Decide on your own.