Hacker News Reader

You cannot terminate half of the company “for cause”. The cause of this scale has a name: Layoffs

But there are lots reports of people who received severance, so why assume Sam's situation is the default.

Why couldn’t 1 person be terminated for cause, even in the midst of a layoff?

Imagine a company going through layoffs when it discovers an employee had been embezzling funds. Does that employee have to be treated the same as the ones who are simply being laid off? What if that employee WAS going to be laid off, but then the embezzlement was discovered? I guess that’s what the lawyers help to decide…

This is an inane hypothetical. We all know that's not what's going on here.

> This is an inane hypothetical.

I’m sorry. You’re right. I did not mean to insinuate that Sam was embezzling from Twitter.

They could, but that would require proof and documentation, and at least a discussion with said employee about said cause. Firing someone for cause is actually quite hard, especially in CA, unless there is an obvious transgression like a crime being committed. Laying people off is “easy” in comparison, provided you pay out the required 2 months of severance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com