Thread regarding Molina Healthcare Inc. layoffs

We Need A PinkSnitch in Ohio

There is something brewing... you can feel in HCS.

by
| 915 views | | 6 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+13tamijo

6 replies (most recent on top)

He is one of the top CIOs in the country. Glad we have him back on our side! Our surveys looked good too

by
|
Post ID: @9cad+13tamijo

Source below:

In April 2011, 18 former employees of Molina Healthcare, Inc. (Molina) sued Molina and its former chief information officer, appellant and respondent Amir Desai, among others.2 The plaintiffs had previously worked as security analysts and computer programmers in Molina’s information technology department. All were American citizens or green card holders. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Molina and Desai engaged in improper discrimination and violated various laws by firing the plaintiffs and replacing them entirely with Indian nationals holding “H-1B visas.”

In August 2011, Desai filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs and appellants Partha Choudhury, Tim Nguyen, James Nguyen, Edward Duong, Ismail Guzey, Chongwei “Steve” Mo, and Karen Ku (the Group 1 plaintiffs). Desai’s cross-complaint alleged that in January and February of 2010, each of the Group 1 plaintiffs entered into severance agreements and written general releases (the Group 1 releases) with Molina, whereby the Group 1 plaintiffs agreed to “compromise, fully settle and fully release all claims which [the Group 1 plaintiffs] may have or claim to have against Company arising out of or in any way relating to . . . employment with and separation of employment from Company.” “Company” was defined to include Molina, as well as its “agents, officers, directors, employees, and owners.”

Thus, the trial court correctly found that Desai did not meet his burden of establishing a probability of prevailing against the Group 2 plaintiffs, and the order granting the Group 2 plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion was proper.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the Group 1 plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. Desai shall recover his costs associated with responding to the Group 1 plaintiffs’ appeal. The order granting the Group 2 plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. The Group 2 plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal from Desai.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3062685/desai-v-choudhury-ca22/

by
|
Post ID: @9ezv+13tamijo

Any word if layoffs coming to Ohio?

by
|
Post ID: @7wvq+13tamijo

The reason why these positions stay open is because we are waiting for friends and family to become available to fill them. Some are still working there landscaping jobs while others are selling motorcycles

by
|
Post ID: @1nji+13tamijo

Feeling the same in WA. So many open positions in HCS not being filled and leadership has vary lame, vague responses when they are asked why.

by
|
Post ID: @1sux+13tamijo

Post a reply

: