The story is from Reuters, who messed up the headline and lede. Per their own article, that is not at all what the judge ruled:
> In denying Twitter's motion to dismiss the case, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Mr Schobinger plausibly stated a breach of contract claim under California law and he was covered by a bonus plan.
Twitter's lawyers filed to have the suit dismissed and the judge rejected the motion. The case is still ongoing, and no decisions were made about the outcome of the case itself, merely that it will be allowed to proceed.
Wow, that is some amazingly terrible legal reporting. A complaint surviving a motion to dismiss is a very low bar and does nothing to prove how the final ruling will go.
> In denying Twitter's motion to dismiss the case, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Mr Schobinger plausibly stated a breach of contract claim under California law and he was covered by a bonus plan.
Twitter's lawyers filed to have the suit dismissed and the judge rejected the motion. The case is still ongoing, and no decisions were made about the outcome of the case itself, merely that it will be allowed to proceed.