Disney told L.A. residents to move to Florida for a planned campus. They did, it was canceled and now they’re suing

Los Angeles Times ^ | June 19, 2024 | Meg James

[grundle]

According to a lawsuit filed Tuesday against Disney in Los Angeles County Superior Court, numerous workers heeded the company’s calls, dutifully sold their homes in the Los Angeles area and moved to Central Florida.

Plaintiffs Maria De La Cruz and George Fong, both current Disney employees, alleged they were fraudulently induced to relocate to Florida by being led to believe that they would lose their jobs if they turned down the move. De La Cruz and Fong agreed to the relocation in November 2021. The lawsuit said Disney told affected employees they would have 90 days to “consider and make the decision that’s best for them.”

De La Cruz, a vice president of product design, sold her Altadena home in May 2022.

“Mr. Fong also sold his home, which was a particularly painful decision because it was the family home he had grown up in and inherited,” the lawsuit said. Fong is a creative director of product design; his family home was in Los Angeles.

Fong has since bought a home in South Pasadena that has “considerably less square footage than his previous Los Angeles home,” the lawsuit said.

[monkeyshine]

They told them to move or lose their jobs. That’s coercive.

[subterfuge]

Daffy as well...

[j.havenfarm]

Well ok, but I’ll say again, it’s not fraud unless they planned to screw them at the outset. Not actionable under CA law. Period.

[bigbob]

Getting 60 day notice that you’re losing your job helps - how?

[Rockingham]

The gravamen of the lawsuit is likely detrimental reliance rather than fraud. Disney has recognized liability in concept.

Per the article: ". . . compensation packages offered to affected employees by the company were inadequate, the lawsuit alleges." Like other large corporations, Disney fears being nibbled to death by lawsuits and prefers as a matter of strategy to pay lawyers but as little in compensation as possible and to make what it does pay hard to get.

Disney's failure to expand its tech workforce in the Orlando area may prove to be a serious error. Florida in general -- and the Orlando area in particular -- are burgeoning with tech talent. Astonishingly, due to the massive and top-rated University of Central Florida, the sleepy small city of my youth is now ranked as the top hub in the world for modeling and simulation.

Moreover, the upscale Lake Nona development southeast of Orlando has an attractive mix of residences, businesses, transportation, shopping and leisure, public amenities, and medical care. That Disney bailed on its plans there suggests it is downsizing not just on immediate costs but on future growth as well.

Walt Disney bet his company more than once based on his imagination and the talent of his employees. Nowadays though, the Mouse is a miserly cheapskate with a taste for the woke and weird. Worse, it may see its future wither as rivals and upstarts prosper with the technical talent that it failed to hire for its now abandoned Orlando tech operation. Accountants can count costs and revenue, but they are notoriously unable to calculate lost opportunities.

[ifinnegan]

“ both current Disney employees”

This doesn’t make sense.

Not enough info in this excerpt to understand what happened.

[CatOwner]

It’s paid time while looking for another job. In California (and in most of the country, I suspect), you can’t be fired for refusing a job relocation well out of the area (45 miles?).

[monkeyshine]

Well Disney has more troubles with the new O’Keefe tapes.

[j.havenfarm]

I’m really going to remain adamant on this as I was admitted to the state Bar of CA more than 30 years ago: detrimental reliance is an element of the cause of action for fraud in CA. That false representations were knowingly made at the outset is also an element, and the plaintiffs can’t prove it here. You must prove all of the elements or you’re SOL

And settlement amenability and offers are 100% inadmissible to prove liability on the public policy of encouraging parties to settle their disputes. Settlement discussion are also completely inadmissible

I’m telling you, Disney has no liability under CA law

[Rockingham]

I practiced law in Florida for quite a few years. My understanding of detrimental reliance is that, depending on the facts, it can be stated in contract or in tort as a form of fraud in which a misrepresentation was relied on.

In contract, substantial, good faith performance that is solicited by another's promise is usually enough for liability even in the absence of an integrated signed contract. Even if you dodge signing a contract, you are still liable in contract when a vendor installs a new AC in your office building at your request.

I am hard put to see why in contract law Disney would have to pay for a new AC unit based on detrimental reliance (and other possible claims) but get to stiff employees who incurred losses reliance on Disney's representations.

As for Disney's settlement discussions and payments to other employees, I would look for loopholes, but they are almost certainly inadmissible. In any event, claims and any cases filed by other employees should provide a trove of documents and witnesses helping prove what Disney promised and a measure of damages.

[alexander_busek]

[...] there reported by the YouTube channels that fallow and report on Disney at the time it happened. While not conservative outlets if you are interested in fallowing anything [...]

Sorry, I don't "fallow."

Regards,