- Joined
- May 4, 2021
- Messages
- 1,170
Motion to Strike is overruled as this is indeed an answer with an explanation which is what would be an appropriate response to your question. Primarily "how was he 'not around' when the decision was made?"
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Sergecool v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Sergecool was let go unfairly due to putting a Leave of Absence.
2. The Plaintiff deserves compensation for projects they worked on.
3. The Plaintiff was not given due warning regarding their activity before the firing.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The firing of the Plaintiff was completely legal due to the LOA not being proper.
2. The Plaintiff only receives compensation for completed projects.
III. THE COURT OPINION
1. On the topic of the Leave of Absence, due to one not being added into evidence by the Plaintiff. We cannot in turn state that there was in fact a Leave of Absence besides testimony both of which are arguing different things. So whether a Leave of Absence was provided cannot be confirmed nor denied.
If one was put with proper formatting then the firing would be better contested. Without evidence of the LOA, I cannot in good faith rule on that section of the complaint.
2. Although Compensation is usually found to be receiving money after a completed project. FCR 19, xEndeavour v. Commonwealth, shows that even if the project is not completed compensation is still due especially pertaining to a firing. Although the DCT Secretary does have control over the amount of compensation, compensation is still due following this Precedent.
3. If an employee is found inactive by a private entity or the Government, although good practice. The employer is not required to give a notice before termination. The act of warning an employee regarding their actions, activity, or other is only if the employer believes they should or would like to. The only other section this would be nulled by is if a contract is in place pertaining to a warning. Given this is an employment by a Government Department a contract is not signed when being hired.
IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Defense despite this, I will be granting $10k in compensation to the Plaintiff due to the Precedent set in FCR 19. I will also be granting $2k in legal fees.
Given this, I hereby order the DOJ to fine the Commonwealth $12k and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.
The Federal Court thanks all involved.