Lawsuit: Pending Yeet_Boy v. The Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 90

[zLost]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Yeet_Boy (Represented by zLost)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Public Affairs
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff was unjustly fired from the Department of Public Affairs for unbanning YeetGlazer from the discord, their reasoning being that YeetGlazer was still in the DPA. The Plaintiff believed that YeetGlazer, if he was to not be fired, needed to be in the DPA discord to carry out his duties. When YeetGlazer was banned for the 2nd time and this time fired, Yeet_Boy did not unban him.

I. PARTIES
1. Yeet_Boy
2. Department of Public Affairs

II. FACTS
1. On 5th July 2025, YeetGlazer offered fellow Event Coordinators to use a build they had made for a previous Squid Game event, to which xDarkkex rudely responded with "GO ON LEAVE" (Exhibit A).
2. On 10th July 2025, YeetGlazer sent coords and screenshots of his build for the Squid Game event (Exhibit B).
3. Following YeetGlazer posting the coords and screenshots, xDarkkex would delete these coords and screenshots, which YeetGlazer questioned to which Darkkex responded by telling YeetGlazer that they did not need him. This caused an argument between YeetGlazer and xDarkkex (Exhibit B).
4. Yeet_Boy joined the argument siding with YeetGlazer. In the middle of the argument, Yeet_Boy saw that YeetGlazer had been banned. (Exhibit C)
5. YeetGlazer was banned from the DPA discord by xDarkkex for the reason that he was not following the DPA code of conduct which required employees to treat each other with respect. (Exhibit D)
6. Yeet_Boy realized that YeetGlazer was banned while still being an employee, and so he unbanned YeetGlazer since he needed to be in the DPA discord to carry out his duties as an Event Coordinator (Exhibit E).
7. YeetGlazer rejoined the server and was fired, following which they were banned for a 2nd time. Yeet_Boy did not unban YeetGlazer this time. (Exhibit F)
8. A while later, Yeet_Boy was given a formal warning by the President for this action. Yeet_Boy gave his justification for his actions in response to this formal warning, which the President disagreed with (Exhibit G).
9. On the 10th of July 2025, Yeet_Boy was fired from the Department of Public Affairs for this action, which he had already been formally warned for. (Exhibit H)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Commercial Standards Act (link) states:
(1) Unfair dismissal - The unjust termination of an employee. In determining if a termination was unjust, the following criteria must rightfully be considered:
(a) if the employee’s termination made financial sense given the regular business activities and necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party (such as in the case of normal company downsizing);
(b) whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business;
(c) whether or not the dismissal was made primarily on the basis of any personally identifiable characteristics, including, but not limited to, gender, race, or political affiliation;
For section (a), there would have been no financial harm to the DPA if Yeet_Boy was kept as an Event Manager.
For section (b), there would have been basically no harm to the workflow, reputation or legal standing of the business. Yeet_Boy did this action with no ill intentions. After the formal warning and the error being fixed (being banned without being fired), Yeet_Boy did not unban YeetGlazer again.
For section (c), we believe that Yeet_Boy’s affiliation with the union was largely taken into account when he was fired for the following reasons:
An anonymous witness reported that xDarkkex, current DPA secretary, was attempting to get rid of union members if they contacted anyone from the event, or if they "disrupted" the event (Exhibit I). Representative Moyfr commented in a public channel, "Like when we were in vc the other day bro was talking about how all the union people are I love DemocracyCraft!ed because he is gathering evidence to find reasons to fire and have them all banned" ("bro" here refers to xDarkkex)(Exhibit J). xDarkkex has also given multiple negative comments about the union (Exhibit K). xDarkkex has also justified baseless claims without evidence to interrogate and threaten union members (Exhibit L). Juniperfig, who was acting in xDarkkex's stead when firing Yeet_Boy, has shown disdain for the union (Exhibit M).

Besides this, a DPA employee was seen maliciously abusing their perms in the DPA discord, which xDarkkex shrugged off since "they were about to quit" (Exhibit N). This DPA employee later decided to not quit, and neither xDarkkex nor juniperfig did anything about this perms abuse.
As we see, Yeet_Boy’'s firing meets all the criteria for being considered an unfair dismissal according to the Commercial Standards Act (link).

Your Honor, I ask you how it's fair for someone who has been in the department for 2+ years, dedicated hundreds of hours into the Department of Public Affairs, been a former DPA secretary, and hosted 20+ events to be fired for an action with no ill intentions, and for this action to be something they had already been formally warned for.

2. The Department of Public Affairs also committed union busting by firing Yeet_Boy, as the Commercial Standards Act (link) states:
(6) Employers who take action to disrupt or prevent the formation of a union, and or engage in conduct to dismantle a union, such as, but not limited to, terminating employees who try to start a union, shall be guilty of Union Busting, as defined:
Union Busting
Employers who take action to disrupt or engage in conduct to dismantle a union.
Per Offence: $2000 Fine
Juniperfig’s actions meet the criteria for union busting in the first clause, as an employee who was in a union was terminated under their stead. Juniperfig’s actions also meet the definition for union busting, as a union member being terminated from the workplace they are attempting to unionize in, disrupts that union. Therefore, Yeet_Boy’s firing was illegal in regards to union busting as well.

3. The Plaintiff is asking for $50,000 in punitive damages as the conduct by xDarkkex and juniperfig during this whole ordeal was outrageous.

4. The Plaintiff is asking for $100,000 in consequential damages in conjunction with the punitive damages as they missed out on being able to host events during summer. Summer is the most active period of the server, and the time when the Plaintiff is most free. They won't get to experience hosting events during summer vacation for a whole year, which is an immense amount of time for DemocracyCraft.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Rehiring of Yeet_Boy to Event Manager.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages.
3. $100,00 in consequential damages for the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, as the Plaintiff was unable to host events during a peak time for them (Summer).

WITNESSES
Moyfr
Yeet_Boy
xDarkkex
juniperfig

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

Note: The message sent by YeetGlazer giving the coords was deleted. A large portion of the argument between YeetGlazer and xDarkkex has also been deleted.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

Spoiler: EXHIBIT D

Spoiler: EXHIBIT E

Spoiler: EXHIBIT F

Spoiler: EXHIBIT G

Spoiler: EXHIBIT H

Spoiler: EXHIBIT I

Spoiler: EXHIBIT J

Spoiler: EXHIBIT K

Spoiler: EXHIBIT L

Spoiler: EXHIBIT M

Spoiler: EXHIBIT N

(identity censored for privacy reasons)

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

DATED: This 26th day of August 2025.

 

[ameslap]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig or their representative is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Yeet_Boy v. The Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 90.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour,

I am appearing before this court as the Acting Attorney General.

 

[ameslap]

Time to get things started.

The Defense has 48 hours to submit their Answer to the Complaint.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour,

The Commonwealth would like to request an additional 24 hours to produce our answer to the complaint.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Yeet_Boy (Represented by zLost)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Public Affairs
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM YeetGlazer offered a build, AFFIRM xDarkex responded “GO ON LEAVE”, DENY it took place July 5th, but rather July 6th as shown in P-001
2. Neither Affirm nor Deny that coordinates and screenshots were sent for a build, Deny that ‘Exhibit B’ shows this content
3. Neither Affirm nor Deny the posting of coordinates and screenshots - The deletion of coords and screenshots, that xDarkkex responded that they did not need him, or that this caused an argument. Deny that ‘Exhibit B’ shows this content.
4. Neither Affirm nor Deny that Yeet_boy had sided with YeetGlazer or that this was an ‘argument’. Deny that Exhibit C shows yeet_boy seeing that YeetGlazer had been banned.
5. Affirm that YeetGlazer was banned from the discord by xDarkkex. Deny that ‘Exhibit D’ shows anyone being banned. Affirm that xDarkex showed the policy the user had violated.
6. Neither Affirm nor Deny Yeet_Boy’s state of mind or intent, Affirm that Yeet_boy had unbanned YeetGlazer. Deny that they needed to be in the DPA discord to carry out their duties.
7. Affirm that YeetGlazer rejoined the server. Affirm they had been fired from the DPA. Affirm that they had been banned a second time.
8. Affirm that Yeet_Boy was given a warning by then President Kaiserin. Affirm that Yeet_Boy responded with justification for their actions. Deny that Kaiserin had disagreed with Yeet_Boy’s response in ‘Exhibit G’.
9. Affirm that Yeet_boy had been fired from the DPA for their permissions abuse. Affirm that Yeet_boy has been warned by the President for this action prior.

II. DEFENCES
1. Yeet_Boy’s termination was not motivated by their union membership, but rather the permissions abuse.
2. The decision to terminate Yeet_Boy was from Juniperfig, Gribble, and Kaiserin. Not xDarkkex.
3. The ‘disdain for the union’ is an out-of-context discussion about permission abuse from union members, and not the union itself.
4. Terminating an employee for permissions abuse is reasonable and justified. The Plaintiff’s characterization of this action as “outrageous” is unsupported by fact or law.
5. The Plaintiff is a part of the DPA union, which notably was striking against the DPA during the entire summer and until recently had been on strike. Even if still employed, the Plaintiff would not have been hosting events during the strike. Claims for consequential damages related to missed events are speculative and unfounded.
6. Termination of a unionized employee for legitimate causes does not constitute union busting. The idea that firing any union member consists of union busting is absurd and a massive exaggeration of the rights granted to unions–this legal interpretation, if upheld, would mean any unionized employee could never be fired, no matter how valid the cause.
7. The severity in the abuse of permissions between the plaintiff and ‘Exhibit N’ are much different - Yeet_Boy had abused their access to permit a user who had been unpermitted and enabled them access to communications they should not have access to whereas in the case of ‘Exhibit N’, the user had only abused in-game permissions that had a short-term effect. This member was also notably removed from the DPA at a later date for abuse of permissions.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 29th day of August 2025

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Exhibit I is an unsourced message, there’s no proof this message wasn’t sourced from the plaintiff themselves, a paid ‘witness’, or just a discord bot. A forwarded message can be created from anywhere, and this is not sufficient evidence of any action - It cannot be verified and should not be considered unless the plaintiff provides a source for it.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Exhibit J fails to show the context of the statement- where it is from, who it is to. The reason why Moy’s opinion is relevant to Yeet_Boy’s termination is unclear.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

Section 9 of the Privacy Act prohibits the Commonwealth from releasing information regarding employees that if released, would be adverse to the individual. The Plaintiff and many other DPA employees, including the entirety of the union, are already aware of the identity of the employee mentioned in this claim, as these permission abuses were discussed in the DPA union chat.

We also include a motion to Strike for Exhibit N, and it be provided under this closed court hearing by the plaintiff there if they wish for it to be included.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Exhibit B includes ‘context’ in an unproven manner- we ask that the added note be struck.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Exhibit D includes an edited image with unproven information- We ask that the evidence be re-filed without the edited content.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Exhibit K & Exhibit L both are collages of evidence, we ask that they be struck and re-introduced as separate filings.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

None of the Plaintiff's evidence is properly named (P-###) [Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 4.6]. We request it be renamed and updated in the filing so that it may follow regular court procedure.

This has been recently upheld Lucaaaserole v. DPA as well.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth petitions this court for the enjoinment of this case until the verdict or dismissal of Lucaaaserole v. DPA as they have a similar fact-set - and these cases have two judicial officers that may result in two different interpretations. We find it may benefit this court and potentially avoid an appeal over rulings if this case is placed on a hold until the other is heard.

 

[ameslap]

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

Section 9 of the Privacy Act prohibits the Commonwealth from releasing information regarding employees that if released, would be adverse to the individual. The Plaintiff and many other DPA employees, including the entirety of the union, are already aware of the identity of the employee mentioned in this claim, as these permission abuses were discussed in the DPA union chat.

We also include a motion to Strike for Exhibit N, and it be provided under this closed court hearing by the plaintiff there if they wish for it to be included.

Granted. All Parties are to make themselves known in the Judiciary Discord for the closed court.

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth petitions this court for the enjoinment of this case until the verdict or dismissal of Lucaaaserole v. DPA as they have a similar fact-set - and these cases have two judicial officers that may result in two different interpretations. We find it may benefit this court and potentially avoid an appeal over rulings if this case is placed on a hold until the other is heard.

Granted. This case is enjoined and shall not move forward until FCR 85 has concluded.

 

[zLost]

I request permission to respond to the motion to strikes.

 

[zLost]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

None of the Plaintiff's evidence is properly named (P-###) [Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 4.6]. We request it be renamed and updated in the filing so that it may follow regular court procedure.

This has been recently upheld Lucaaaserole v. DPA as well.

The courts upheld that evidence put into one exhibit be split into multiple categories, not that the name of the evidence is changed. As we can see, Justice ko531 only asked the Plaintiff to "split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.", and did not request them to change the name of the evidence filings.

Justice ko531 accepted the Plaintiffs argument that the Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.6 only applies to evidence submitted in Discovery, not to evidence supplied in the opening statement.

 

[ameslap]

I request permission to respond to the motion to strikes.

Go ahead.