The forced upfront payout is probably a good thing in most cases - large companies can play games with the court system for years, purposely drawing out proceed

The forced upfront payout is probably a good thing in most cases - large companies can play games with the court system for years, purposely drawing out proceedings for no valid reason. Most companies can afford to pay up front, they just don't want to. To force a company into bankruptcy is tough, but then again it's a warning to companies not to make such major mistakes with their employees. The strange aspect is this: what happens if the appeals result in a change of outcome? Would the employees be required to pay back the money? I'm also curious as to what exactly the lawsuit claims were. Surely it's not just "he didn't need to lay people off because he had money" - if that's the case, I believe the outcome was too harsh. I am wondering if what really happened is something I've seen over and over again: the company lays people off, and then starts massive rehires only months later. This is illegal in many places, but companies often get away with it anyway. They just want to improve the bottom line for the current quarter to appease shareholders, and then go back to hiring at the beginning of the next quarter after shareholders are no longer looking at expense reports.