Thread regarding Cisco Systems Inc. layoffs

No one wins lawsuits against Cisco..

Not entirely true with discrimination cases

I know this as a fact...they have lost (or at least settled) case against Cisco, which is why HR does its level best to avoid them in the first place of course...

Outside of a clear discrimination case I would agree - wrongful dismissal is not worth it..

Also any court case will of course get you black-balled for any future employment (not unsurprisingly..) so it really needs to be worth your time and be sure of winning it..

Recently Intel got hit with a lawsuit by a Korean-born software engineer in California who claims he was denied a promotion after complaining about the tech giant’s preferential treatment of workers of Indian and South Asian descent. It is very common to see the same in Cisco. HR can easily find out it simply by reviewing the org chart. My Indian neighbor tells me that non-Indians are included in "untouchables". I feel in Cisco what my neighbor said is true. I don't understand why Chuck talks about social justice and BLM but, fails to look inside for the unfairness and injustice caused by the caste system.

I have a case of discrimination against Cisco. The equalities and human rights commission have looked at it. If I read the findings correctly the commission believe the case has merit. Unfortunately they need more than one case because they don’t believe the individual case will impact the behaviour of the employer. However Cisco state they have zero tolerance on discrimination yet the executive circle are fully aware of the case the findings and our ignoring it. So if anyone has any other cases please state.

The law says employees can submit claim against their employers based on an offer of voluntary retirement that was in fact involuntary retirement.
This is regardless of legalese they are coerced to sign to get their final payout
ER and Transition LR last was in fact involuntary since all impacted would have be LR'd in Dec anyway if they did not accept offer

I see a Class Action Suit in the near future. They purposely in so many words told people to take the ER and LR. Voluntarily taking these avenues is their way of avoiding the need to pay unemployment. Sweetheart deals only applied to the upper percentage and they short changed the ER and LR groups.

No one wins lawsuits against Cisco. They are a huge corporation w/ deep pockets and a lot of legal resources. Also, the fine print in the LR and ER packages, that you are required to sign before receiving the payout, ensures you will not sue Cisco.

Remember the recent law sue filed by the State of California?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/tech/cisco-lawsuit-caste-discrimination/index.html

If you believe you have been abused, then you should definitely seek for some legal helps no matter what.

With the ever ramping nepotism and favoritism, I will be glad to testify in the court for the victim that was discriminated against because of caste.

Talking to a lawyer will only do one thing...cost you money. For starters, this is not a layoff. It is a voluntary package being offered while notifying individuals that their position is at risk of not being around come January. What can a lawyer do with you making a choice? Nothing.

Now, you can choose not to take it, roll the dice, and see if you survive in December. I think it is extremely unlikely....

But it is a layoff. The only voluntary thing about it is that you get to choose when to go. You can voluntarily go early with a larger payout or you can choose to stay and hope to land a new job, which as you said is extremely unlikely, and get a smaller package.

Different people are interpreting what the "stay in place" option is and what "at risk" means. If you don't find a new job, are you "at risk" or "are you gone"? The definition of risk is a potential, not a certainty. Where does the risk lie? In your role being eliminated or in you not being able to find a new role? If it's the former, then Cisco has a better argument that you voluntarily left. If it's the latter, then there was no voluntary choice in being let go, only a choice in WHEN you leave: Oct 30, Nov 23 or Jan 4.

Is it too much to ask that the ELT be transparent and tell us what the "at risk" means? I'd bet there are a lot of people thinking they can beat the at-risk and waiting thinking that if enough other people take the early package their role might survive.

Employees can submit claim against their employers based on an offer of voluntary retirement that was in fact involuntary retirement.
To rise to the level of constructive discharge, the offer must disguise the employer's intentions of getting rid of the employee
Obvious that both ER and Transition LR last week was in fact involuntary since all impacted would have be LR'd in Dec anyway if they did not accept offer

As part of the LR process in the UK it is mandated to speak to an employment lawyer. Cisco provide you with £500 extra in the financial settlement to engage a lawyer. On the final settlement agreement the lawyer has to sign as well as you, showing that you have undertaken advice from a legal representative. If you don't get the signature then you don't get the payment. Of course Cisco being cheap £500 isn't enough to engage anyone reasonable apart from the Saul Goodman types, so you end up out of pocket.

Unless you can show some real discrimination it's not even worth looking at legal paths in the UK. Wrongful dismisal maxes out at £80K and you'll be engaged in litigation for a year before Cisco fold at the Courtroom door and offer you $75K.

Talking to a lawyer will only do one thing...cost you money. For starters, this is not a layoff. It is a voluntary package being offered while notifying individuals that their position is at risk of not being around come January. What can a lawyer do with you making a choice? Nothing.

Now, you can choose not to take it, roll the dice, and see if you survive in December. I think it is extremely unlikely. In December, there may be no package. They could just say there's the door, good luck. I can't comprehend why people would want to stay at a company that doesn't want them? There is not a single person at Cisco that they care about. They can replace any and all of them in the matter of a few days. When people finally start to realize this about their company, they start to enjoy life more, live more stress free, and start to take control of their relationship with their employer. It is empowering.

Chuck promised not to do any layoffs through the end of July......get your facts straight

As someone who's actually been to law school don't bother. You have no case. Don't sulk. Just move on and get a new job.

The legal picture depends on where you live. However there is one common bond. I believe every CIsco employment contract states you have to abide by Cisco’s code of business conduct. If you believe that your selection for LR was personal, discrimination, forced to submit unapproved pricing or Cisco lied to you. For example chuck saying no one would be fired during the pandemic and then LR’s people. Then there is potentially a case for material breach of contract. I’m not a solicitor but potentially a group claim could be investigated. We’re the LR’s down to COVID or just poor management.

This is only for the bravest, with very deep pockets...

Chuck Robbins has...