Lawsuit: In Session End v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 39

End said:

Objection


OBJECTION
PREJUDICE

Your Honour, I respectfully submit an objection to the continued reliance on context which falls outside the scope of this dispute.

The matter before the Court concerns a dismissal for alleged inactivity and lack of progress. That is the basis on which I was terminated, and accordingly, it is the basis on which I have brought this claim.

Repeated references by the Defendant to my broader stance on departmental policy, or prior unrelated conduct, do not address the specific grounds for my dismissal and risk introducing irrelevant and prejudicial material into these proceedings.

With respect, I request that the Court limit consideration to the lawfulness and procedural fairness of the dismissal itself, rather than matters that were not contemporaneously raised or relied upon in the decision to terminate my employment.

Click to expand...
Denied.
For the last time @End, the court will not be entertaining this line of argument from you. Cease before you face punishment for failing to comply with court orders.


End said:
Your honour, I've requested the last date that no more than 15 people did something in the last six months. This is a five minute job with the access that the Department has to the Discord.

If you feel it should be limited to Constructors and Construction Managers that's fine, but I stand by my request that six months is acceptable and reasonable.

The defence claims conjecture and estimation and won't provide me the evidence which would allow me to make an informed analysis.
Click to expand...
I find that there is no harm in producing said evidence. At worst, it would only serve to inform the court a little further on the state of the Department of Construction and Transportation. The Commonwealth is afforded a period of 48 hours to produce the evidence requested by the Plaintiff.

Discovery shall remain in effect till the evidence is produced. Should either party have any new evidence or questions to pose, they may do so using proper formatting without repercussion.
 

Response



RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF PRODUCTION

May 3rd:
JustaDumpling, inactivity period of around ~2 months, warning not issued, offer to resign granted
CrackedAmoeba, inactivity period of around 1 month, warning not issued, offer to resign granted
Smokeybunnyyy, Inactivity period of around 2 months, warning not issued, offer to resign granted
Smilinq, Inactivity period unknown, warning not issued, offer to resign granted
Technofied, inactivity period of around 1 month, warning not issued.
xEndeavor, Inactivity period of around 2-3 months, warning not issued
GoldBlooded, Inactivity period of around 3 months, warning not issued
Nacho, inactivity period of around 3 months, warning not issued.

April 10th:
EpicFought, inactivity period of around 1 month, warning not issued.

April 8th:
Vellebelle: resigned

March 31st:
UnseatedDuke: inactivity period of at least 1 month [zero communication inside relations channel before vroombas tenure], warnings issued.

March 18th:
5noozy: inactivity period of at least 1 month [zero communication inside relations channel before vroombas tenure], warnings issued.
Katto: resigned

March 15th:
Alienbloom20204: inactivity period of at least 1 month [zero communication inside relations channel before vroombas tenure], warnings issued, resigned upon warning given.
Tiga: Inactivity period of 6 months!, warnings were not issued.
Block86: inactivity period of atleast 11 months, warnings issued by previous secretary.

March 14th:
MrFluffy2U94: resigned to take up duties as builder in SC.

March 9th:
kvogt2340: Inactivity period of atleast 2 months, warning not issued.

[Transition to former Secretary]
March 7th
lcn: resigned

February 27th:
Hacked: Resigned

February 26th:
alexanderlove: resigned

January 27th:
Dimplerobin: Inactivity period of 2 months, warning issued.
Jay_the_Gay: Inactivity period of 2 months, warning issued.

November 14th:
lcn [again!]: resigned


This is the furthest the logs that the DCT keep on hand go, I apologize that the defense cannot provide the full list requested by the courts.

AD_4nXcQzpGMOPka6Wn0aggk9B41b9vdVr8oO5L51mRlfhvvDgWjHUHAURRRPiXKaQf6c2F7friQW4Y6UJpOhuXQ5kqgPlV8dA6LOvklwMGQ2KTPCOGeVFbW8s6YESIaR2VksQfH2HR5Xw

 
With that submission, the time allotted for discovery has now elapsed. The Plaintiff shall be afforded 48 hours to submit an Opening Statement. Failure to meet the deadline will result in a contempt of court charge. Please request an extension if necessary.
 
End said:
requesting an additional 24 hours due to irl commitments over this period
Click to expand...
Granted. The Original Deadline is extended by 24 hours.
 

Opening Statement



Your honour, I was a proud employee of the Department of Construction and Transport for over five years. I've served as secretary for an extended period, and for the rest I've been in a position of leadership as a senior constructor or deputy secretary.

Context
My work at the department includes, but is not limited to:

Hamilton City
Reveille City
Government House
Court Complex
Transport Network
Mount Rushvert
Willow
Reveille Yacht Club
The Esplanade
Greenscaping
Reveille Park
North Business District
University Hospital
University Beach
Enclaves
Reveille Hospital Redevelopment
Animal Shelter Redevelopment
Revcatraz
All Police Stations
Olympic Park
Impeachment Museum
State Department Redevelopment
United Nations Chamber
Racetrack
Sampson Hills
Reveille Heights
Reveille and Hamilton Zoos
Exhibition Centre
Private Pharmacies
Reveille Museum
Reveille and Hamilton Capitol
Light Rail
Black Market
Industrial Area
Hamilton and Reveille Airport

It's easy to list off these projects and to reduce them to bullet points, but it does not capture the thousands upon thousands of hours I devoted to the department. If the Defence sees fit to impugn my character in an effort to justify their decision to terminate my employment after-the-fact, then let the record also show what I have achieved in that time.

Claim
I was fired for one reason and one reason only. It was clearly communicated to me.

Consistent inactivity and lack of progress on assigned projects.

The rest? Irrelevant attempts to try and justify a botched termination after the fact so they can cover their actions which they know to be illegal.

I am not contesting anything more than this, and my claim does not extend to anything more than this.

I respectfully submit this one, simple question to the Court:

Did this termination, on the basis provided, constitute unfair dismissal?

That is the legal test before this Court. That is the matter to which the evidence must speak. And that is the only issue I have brought for adjudication.

I reject the Defence's continued attempts to shift the focus away from this question by introducing irrelevant or retrospective justifications which the court has continued to entertain.

Activity in the Department
It must be noted that the Department of Construction and Transport, particularly the Construction Division, was broadly inactive across the board at the relevant time. In that context, I was one of the most active contributors to discord planning discussions and building.

I informed the Secretary that I would be tied up with building for Statecraft in a number of conversations I had with him in the lead up to and post-release of the new city. He was very aware of my commitments there, as he was also part of the build team. Therefore, I had fulfilled my requirement to inform my boss of my reduced activity.

To suggest that I failed to submit this notice in a particular channel ignores the actual practice and policy of the Department:

  • There is no mandated location within DCT for submitting leave or absence notices
  • There is no requirement to provide specific dates
  • The stated purpose of the relations channel is to inform - which I fulfilled by informing the Secretary
To reduce this matter to the absence of a message in an arbitrary Discord channel is both legally and administratively indefensible.

The defence says:

xEndeavor, Inactivity period of around 2-3 months, warning not issued
Click to expand...

That means I was inactive from around 4 Feb.

16 Mar: Informed of commitments building a city on SC (P-006), Planning Port/industrial area.

17 Mar: Voting on department matters (P-007)

23 Mar: Discussions in leadership (P-009)

29 Mar: Discussions in leadership (P-010)

30 Mar: Discussions in leadership and planning (P-011)

5 April: Discussions in leadership (P-013), Planning Aventura interchange

18 April: Discussions in leadership (P-014)

20 April: Discussions in leadership (P-015)

4 May: Terminated

While I wasn't active in-game building, I was still very much active on discord as shown by the evidence.

Projects
It is incorrect to state that I failed to progress on 'assigned projects,' because to have a lack of progress, you need to have a project to start with.
  • I was not assigned to any specific project
  • I frequently proposed and planned new projects myself, such as the new industrial area expansion or the Aventura interchange upgrade.
  • The claim that a group wide @here ping or @constructionmanager constitutes an individual assignment and that failure to act on it is justification for termination — is completely unreasonable and unjust.
The grounds given for my termination are not supported, the process was rushed, and the justification now being offered by the Defence is retrospective, irrelevant, and different to the actual reason provided at the time.

I ask the Court to assess this case based on the only question that matters:

Was I unfairly dismissed based on the reason given?

I assert that I was. The facts support that conclusion. And I trust the Court will too.

 
stop lying End
Was I unfairly dismissed based on the reason given?

I assert that I was. The facts support that conclusion. And I trust the Court will too.
Click to expand...
is the most untrue statement i ever heard

Hamilton City
Reveille City
Government House
Court Complex
Transport Network
Mount Rushvert
Willow
Reveille Yacht Club
The Esplanade
Greenscaping
Reveille Park
North Business District
University Hospital
University Beach
Enclaves
Reveille Hospital Redevelopment
Animal Shelter Redevelopment
Revcatraz
All Police Stations
Olympic Park
Impeachment Museum
State Department Redevelopment
United Nations Chamber
Racetrack
Sampson Hills
Reveille Heights
Reveille and Hamilton Zoos
Exhibition Centre
Private Pharmacies
Reveille Museum
Reveille and Hamilton Capitol
Light Rail
Black Market
Industrial Area
Hamilton and Reveille Airport
Click to expand...
most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so u are wrong

YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROJECTS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!!!!!
 
Plura72 said:
stop lying End

is the most untrue statement i ever heard


most of these are 1+ year old projects since completion so u are wrong

YOU HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS RECENTLY AND NO PROJECTS SO STOP LYING THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Plura72 is hereby sentenced to death by public execution. charged with contempt of court for disrupting lawful court procedures. The Department of Justice is recommended to investigate potential obstruction of justice.


Additionally, the Defense is afforded 48 hours to submit their Opening Statement. Please request an extension if necessary.
 

Opening Statement



The plaintiff alleges that due to their time in the Dct, and the previous work done for the department, reducing one of the most time-consuming departments to discordcrafting is a good excuse for activity.
In the 3 months of serving under Vroomba, the ultimate authority for the termination, Endeavor has turned in the following projects:

None Applicable.

In the 3 months serving under Vroomba, xEndeavor has offered to lead the following projects, of which multiple were proposed as per [D-03]:

None Applicable.

The plaintiff, however, has demonstrated one immutable truth: Building is a difficult and time-consuming process. What then does that mean when one of the bosses within the construction subsector of the Dct gets away with doing the bare minimum for activity, simply arguing about policy changes under the guise of "advising and responding to discussion", while taking zero part in the onus corresponding to his role.
The plaintiff has neither demonstrated a clear excuse for his lack of activity, with his excuse being "multiple informations, with no clear policy," not hold up if you give it a clear textual viewpoint.

For the sake of simplicity, we will be dividing the core components of our opening statement into spoilered blocks.


In essence, leave of absences in the situation presented to the courts are to be read as Contracts between the employee and the employer modifying the terms of their employment to suit the new terms and expectations of activity. With that in mind, the court must look to see if the Plaintiff's activity and the Terminating party's response would equal the formation of a proper contract.

As per the proposed "leave of absence," the Plaintiff proposed [P-03], the response given would need to meet the following criteria as per the Contract Act:

Offer, Acceptance, And Intent: There was no clear and unequivical communication between the parties to enter in to an LoA, while End claims to propose that this was communication on his end, the statement in response "thanks for acknowledging that" could be in response to either his message about inactivity, or the fact that the secretary is not getting enough support. As such, it would not meet the Offer OR Acceptance category. For this reason, as well, intent is not present, since the intent to accept a Leave of Absence is not present, given the above evidence.

Consideration: In a contract defining Leave of Absence, the consideration would be the ability for the delegating body to know how to shape the responsibilities of the employee, this intangible exchange of expectations from each other is mutually beneficial as it allows people to not make misteps in leadership positions by relying on a pillar that is no longer there. Consideration is not present in the leave of absence message because no changes in expectations were exchanged, and as such, neither party leaves with any new information.

If the terms of this supposed leave of absence are looked into under a legal lens, then it is clear that there was no formation of a Leave of Absence through proper Policy or Legal means.

The Plaintiff offers one claim particular claim, that if accepted at face value, would be ruinous to the continued function of any employee protections: That beyond the Termination itself, any justification made afterwards is not valid.

In response, the defense offers one simple reply: Employee Termination Messages are not legally binding.
There is no precedent for the upholding of termination messages as the sole immutable truth behind the termination itself, Termination messages are not linked to any law, act, or executive order. As such, this imagined idea of "ad-hoc rationalization" is simply an emotional response to being told that there are more layers to the termination than were listed. The defense admits that this is not the most professional action on behalf of the secretary, but affirms that it is neither illegal or harmful to the plaintiff. as such, any reasonable person would see the nigh-blackmail of his activity in the department "Have fun having a department that doesnt do anything for you" [D-06] as a reasonable component to the termination of the plaintiff, even if not communicated in the initial termination message.

The courts already know this to be true, it's why they've overruled multiple motions to block this important piece from delivering the justice that it deserves.

As shown multiple times in the court before, and through evidence presented, the Plaintiff has been a force of obstructionism and aggravation within the department, multiple times threatening to withhold work or become even more inactive within the department, if such a thing exists. This gives clear reason to the secretary to remove them from their position, as through a textual lens in the CSA, as mentioned multiple times before in this court case, obstruction to workflow is a valid reason for termination of a party.

On the other hand, it is a reasonable assumption that managers within a department are to be looked up to by those both in the department and out. Such inactivity and obstructionism from the Plaintiff stands to only damage the reputation of the department, where, if you look within the CSA yet again, there is specifically a clause for reputation to the company's reputation to be damaged, giving yet another avenue for the termination of the plaintiff to be valid.

In order to make the long short; The Plaintiff stands to abuse the courts by misrepresenting his presence within the department, and then bend the law to turn a blind eye towards any provisions that further damn him to be ultimately more Harm then good within the department, In both Activity and Conduct. With that in mind, the termination of the Plaintiff seems only natural, and the Employee Protections Act that the defendant cites within his claims gives direct Permission to fire employees for conducting themself in the way Endeavor did.

 

Objection


OBJECTION
Relevance

This whole section is irrelevant to the reason for termination and should be struck as an attempt to justify the termination after-the-fact:

Unprofessional Conduct, Acting as a role model for the department.

 
End said:

Objection


OBJECTION
Relevance

This whole section is irrelevant to the reason for termination and should be struck as an attempt to justify the termination after-the-fact:

Unprofessional Conduct, Acting as a role model for the department.

Click to expand...
Rejected.

How many times must I warn you that this line of argument will bear no fruit? From this point forward, should you attempt to make similar wasteful objections, you will be sanctioned accordingly. This is your final warning.
 

Writ of Summons

@Vroomba, @GoldBlooded @End are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of FCR 39 End vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont

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.

 
Dr_Eksplosive said:

Writ of Summons

@Vroomba, @GoldBlooded @End are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of FCR 39 End vs. The Commonwealth of Redmont

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.

Click to expand...
Been here since the 5th of May
 
Present your honor.
 
Last edited:
Present your honor.
 
All witnesses have appeared before the court within the allotted timeframe. Thank you.

The Defense shall be allotted 48 hours to post any questions for these 3 witnesses. Witnesses shall be afforded 24 hours to respond following these questions. Any follow ups may be asked within 24 hours of witness response.

Time extensions may be requested when necessary without repercussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top