Former Twitter Employee Files Motion to Compel Arbitration After Company Refuses to Foot JAMS Bill

A former Twitter employee has filed a motion to compel arbitration on behalf of himself and other former employees of the company after Twitter reversed course and refused to proceed with arbitration over the associated fees. In 2022, Twitter was acquired by Elon Musk who then terminated or laid off at least half of the company’s employees. Prior to leaving the company, Fabien Ho Ching Ma (“Petitioner”) and thousands of other employees signed an agreement to arbitrate any claims against Twitter arising out of employment with and separation from Twitter before the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”) using JAMS Rules. The arbitration agreement was drafted by Twitter without any input from the former employees.  

Under the JAMS Policy on Employment Arbitration Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness, however, an employee is only required to pay arbitration case management fees.  Meanwhile, the employer is required to pay for all other costs arising out of arbitral proceedings. 

Later, various groups of former Twitter employees filed several putative class action lawsuits against the company in federal court.  The company successfully moved to compel each of the disputes to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the agreement to arbitrate that each employee signed.  After that, about 2,000 former Twitter employees, including the Petitioner, filed an arbitration demand against Twitter via JAMS.  Many arbitrators were appointed and administration began in several cases.  In addition, final hearings were scheduled in many of the arbitration cases.  It was at this point that Twitter apparently realized the potential cost of moving forward with thousands of arbitrations was quite high.  

Next, Twitter requested that JAMS order all arbitration fees to be split equally between the former employees and the company in most states, with the notable exception of California.  JAMS declined to acquiesce to Twitter’s demand and the company responded by refusing to participate in any arbitration proceedings outside of California.  In response, JAMS notified the parties to each arbitration that the scheduled hearings were canceled due to Twitter’s refusal to abide by the JAMS Rules.  

In Fabien Ho Ching Ma v. Twitter, Inc. and X Corp., No. 3:23-cv-3301 (N.D. Cal., Filed July 3, 2023), the Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former Twitter employees who filed a demand for arbitration via JAMS pursuant to Twitter’s arbitration agreement.  In his motion, the Petitioner asked the federal district court to order Twitter to comply with the JAMS Minimum Standards and pay any “arbitration fees and costs JAMS determines are necessary to empanel arbitrators and proceed with arbitrations.”

Please check back soon for updates in this case!   

Photo by:  Souvik Banerjee on Unsplash

*Please note: The complaint that is linked in this blog post was first published in a recent Reuters article.