[heroic]

This would be then termination with cause. Employment agreements generally state that employees can be required to work from any location as required by the employer. Refusal is then called breach of contract and hence termination without cause.

[hansvm]

There are limits. If you sign up for a desk job in LA with no mention of travel and then get shuffled every day to Chicago, NYC, ... then it's unlikely the courts would agree that it was a termination with cause if the employee refused to cooperate. Here the courts might find that a month is insufficient notice, they might find that since the job started in the office there was always a reasonable expectation that the employees would have to return to the office, there might be jurisdictional questions, and who knows what else. Without a lot more details I'd hesitate to speculate as to the legal outcome in this case.

[bawolff]

As with all things, depends on where you live.

IANAL - but for example, in canada, forcing employees to move,or even significantly increase their commute, is considered the same as unilaterally changing the employees pay, and cant be done without the employees consent.

[matsemann]

All my contracts have stated where the workplace is. Not the specific address, but on a city / region level. Then one part can't just change that.

[GekkePrutser]

According to the article they only have offices in India. I don't think welfare is that great there anyway. Nor worker protection laws.

[ClumsyPilot]

> from any location as required by the employer.

No, we dont want to fire you, but since you decline to work from any of the proposed location in Somalia, North Korea, and the North Pole...

[lupire]

Termination without cause is essentially a layoff, and eligible for unemployment.