Hacker News Reader

No. Why does this one employee get to vest early and the others don't? It's a legal minefield and sets up the wrong precedent.

View on HN

As opposed to paying them more money and then vesting the stock? Paying them more is not a worse precedent?

And I don't see any legal ramifications here, but not legal advice

The win is with the exiting employees - it's much better to be benevolent in this situation. Sure it costs a little more but just see that as an investment in the rest of the company.

I wasn't referring to letting the stock vest. I was referring to the concept of leaving them on the payroll until their stock vests. There's no reason not to vest the stock early and send them on their way.

Unless the original poster wanted to give them severance.

I know - I would personally just put them on gardening leave until their stocks vest. Sure that costs money but not a lot - it's probably worth it for the lack of drama.

It's < 10 people, so getting the message out isn't an issue. So I wouldn't worry about drama wrt people thinking he got screwed out of his stock. Can even hold a meeting about it.

Legal fees for early vesting might be a significant cost.

How?

can the employee be terminated but part of that termination package is the assurance of his vesting at the right time soon?

in this case he's now a headache to keep around

Reply on news.ycombinator.com