Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle Coda Sedan Electric Vehicle

Following bankruptcy proceedings over at Coda Automotive, we can't say we're surprised by talk of a WARN Act lawsuit. After all, US Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act proceedings were taken against Fisker Automotive in April. So we kind of know the drill.

The WARN Act's purpose is to give workers and their families "some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market."

In Coda's case, a lawsuit was filed by former employee Tony Bulchack, and alleges that the mass layoffs that took place in December 2012 happened without giving the 125 workers laid off then the required 60-day notices. Discussions of a WARN act lawsuit against Coda has been in the works for a while over at Girard Gibbs law firm as well. Bulchack's complaint is embedded below.

Coda announced two weeks ago that it will no longer sell electric vehicles and will instead restructure as an energy storage business.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 11 Comments
      2 wheeled menace
      • 1 Year Ago
      Nothing better than a lawsuit after you go bankrupt.
      mark
      • 1 Year Ago
      60 day notice? Your gonna tell me no one that worked at coda reads any newspapers. It's not like it was a shock. Tons of people get laid off or fired daily this is stupid.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @mark
        @ Mark, It's reasonable for employees to believe that the directors have made provision for the companies WARN Act legal obligations. It's not as if the directors of Coda, are inexperienced !
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          @ Mark, Mark, there's a difference between casual workers, people who understand that their jobs may be only temporary, and skilled employees recruited on a permanent basis. The WARN ACT provisions are the law. Directors of companies (especially experienced directors) are personally liable to make provision for all foreseeable liabilities. (Failure to do so would constitute knowingly trading while insolvent.) The employees are entitled to these benefits to assist with the transition. This constitutes part of the contract between employer and employee.
          mark
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          I'm not saying their inexperienced. I just don't see why they should get compensated for being let go. I have friends that work the GM plant by my house they new everything that was going on. It was never a shock when they got fired or laid off. Same with my job first three months of the year are always slow, so that's when we fire people and trim the fat off the company. We rethink the way we do things and become more efficient and start the year fresh.
      Mami
      • 1 Year Ago
      GO AWAY!
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      I hate to see this sort of thing happening in the EV industry ! Usually, EV companies that collapse are run by well intentioned, if naive idealists. I never want to see such people held personally responsible, for the collapse of their dream. Often the directors have lost personal fortunes, and worked, sometimes for years, without salaries, to build enterprises in which they truly believed. But, in this case the Directors should be held personally responsible for the employee entitlements. Coda backers, are not 'naive idealists', but businesspeople well experienced in the art of corporate bankruptcy and how to avoid personal loss ! They could well afford to pay the unfortunate employee victims of their commercial machinations, and should be forced to pay these legal obligations.
        DarylMc
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        I agree and I am sure it is tough to start an EV business. I also agree that Coda should oblige any legal obligations to employees.
          DarylMc
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DarylMc
          They have done poorly at more than EV manufacturing if they fail to do so.
      Deneway
      • 1 Year Ago
      Dear Plaintiffs: here is a Stone. Please squeeze for blood. There is no money.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Deneway
        @ Deneway, The company may have filed for bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean there is no money ! The employees want to rank (and rightly) as priority creditors. This means, they will get first disbursement of any monies left after the bankruptcy process. In many jurisdictions, the directors of Coda would be personally liable for failing to set aside WARN provisions.