Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

Banning of non-competes in the U.S. earlier this week.
"On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3 – 2 in favor of banning all post-employment noncompete agreements. The ban will take effect 120 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register."
A win for us regular folks in the U.S.

California Schwab will settle. Maybe not much $ but will still be something. Depends on how much attorney think they can collect and whether they think it's worth the time.

I think the commenter covered that when she wrote

While they aren’t wrong, the issue for those harassed, laid off or employed by Chuckles is far beyond this generic litigation. There is already a ruling that renders much of the employment and severance agreement moot.

Agree the post needs help. Why do we care? Can we help? Otherwise it’s clickbait and one of many lawsuits against Schwab.

OP certainly could have posted the full text instead of trying to get everyone to click through, but otherwise I don't see the problem. If you are laid off, you probably should consult with an attorney. Wouldn't be surprised to see multiple suits pop up against Schwab in the near future.

Not OP and hoping this post is removed.

The web text is below so you don’t have to click. While they aren’t wrong, the issue for those harassed, laid off or employed by Chuckles is far beyond this generic litigation. There is already a ruling that renders much of the employment and severance agreement moot.

We know that corporations seek to generally squelch anything that makes them look bad except for those corporations doing the right things.

If you want real change

• Vote. And not for the lying grifter with orange makeup or anyone pledging allegiance to him.

• Fight. If you’re still on the Farm, document everything good or bad. The day will come when you’re targeted. It has happened thousands of times and will happen thousands more.

• Remember that other companies are the same with few exceptions. Your best play is to make a lot of money early so you can tell them to f-off on your terms.

• Fighting Chuck is not that hard mostly because managers are lazy and HR isn’t much better. If you play for the package you can do well. If it gets to arbitration or litigation you play to settle. The last thing Chuck wants is bad press.

But this post wasn’t it OP. It needed context and didn’t have to champion a specific firm in the title.

THE SCHWAB EMPLOYEE RIGHTS CASE

Employers cannot unlawfully condition your job, wages, or even a severance payment on the waiver or relinquishment of certain important rights. Your name, face and likeness belong to you. So does your voice. So does the trade or profession you choose to practice.

Nevertheless, Charles Schwab & Co. and its affiliates (“Schwab”) require employees to sign documents that grant it the right to sell or use their name, likeness and voice, forever, “in any and all media worldwide,” as Schwab sees fit. It also requires employees to waive any claims that might arise from the misuse or abuse of their likeness, even if the misuse is defamatory or an invasion of a current or former employees’ right to privacy.

Schwab – through overbroad and inappropriate confidentiality provisions and designations – also restrains its current and former employees’ rights by asserting the right to control information about wages, working conditions, and other subjects, including unlawful conduct. It prohibits employees from soliciting customers, clients, and co-workers for up to 18 months if they leave Schwab’s employ. Indeed, Schwab goes so far to as require employees to disconnect on LinkedIn from client contacts they have served and known – sometimes for years – if they ever leave Schwab’s employ. This is unfair to employees and clients.

Fortunately, the law gives employees the right to their own likeness and voice. “The protection of name and likeness from unwarranted intrusion or exploitation is the heart of the law of privacy.” Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813, 824. Other laws establish an employee anti-gag rule that gives current and former employees the right to freedom of speech, to whistle-blow, and to compete. Doe v. Google (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 948, 961; Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 946.

Schwab has described employees as a firm’s “most important asset,” i.e., resource with economic value that the firm owns or controls. Employees are more than assets. They are individuals with intrinsic rights.

For these reasons, a First Amended Complaint has been filed against Schwab on behalf of its current and former employees and the State of California. Schwab must abandon its unlawful employment practices and protect and abide by the rights of its employees.

If you are a current or former Schwab employee based in California, have information about the employment practices referenced above, or would like to share how Schwab’s practices have affected your rights, please send us a message using the on-line form on this webpage.