Reasons Why The Company Should Be Held Liable For Wrongful TerminationThey Used corporate Restructuring as an Excuse for Discrimination

Wrongful termination is a violation of federal law, and an employee has the right to sue the employer for damages for wrongful termination. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission provides the rights for employees to be protected against discrimination in
employment (FindLaw, 2018). In this case, the company used the excuse of restructuring to
discriminate against 100 employees. It can be proven that these employees were wrongfully
terminated on the basis of their national origin. The employer claimed a corporate restructuring
and went ahead to choose 100 employees to be terminated. A company has the liberty to lay off
employees because of restructuring to ensure a reduction of costs, but it has no right to
discriminate against these employees. The restructuring plan that included the identification of
the 100 employees to be fired was approved by the board. The employees to be terminated were
chosen on the basis of their job classifications and locations. The law prohibits discrimination
based on national origin, and the employees were picked because of their locations which are
discriminatory, and the employer should be found guilty for wrongful termination.
The Employer Breached the Employment Contract
If there was a written contract between the employer and the employees, the attorney for
the employees can claim that there was a breach of the contract; hence the termination was
wrongful. Employment contracts stipulate employees’ rights, such as a termination notice and
grounds for termination. The attorney will prove that the termination procedure as per the
employment contract was not followed; hence the termination should be held as illegal. If the
restructuring plan was not a ground for termination, then the employer will be found guilty of
wrongful termination. Employment contracts have clauses for payment after termination. An

WRONGFUL TERMINATION 3
employee is entitled to a payment as a result of working for the employer for a duration of time.
The attorney can argue that this was included in the contract; hence the employee should not use
a waiver of rights form as a determinant of whether the employee will be paid severance benefits
(Legal Information Institute, 2019).
Notice and Severance
Severance benefits are paid to the employee by the employer for involuntary termination.
Employers offer severance pay, and the terms are agreed on in the employment contract. The
attorney for the employees can argue that failing to include this in the employment contract of
the current employees, yet it was included for the previous employees, amounts to unequal
treatment of employees. The law provides a 60 days’ notice to be given by the employer for
severance pay (Legal Information Institute, 2019). In this case, the employees were given less
than 60 days’ notice; hence they were wrongfully terminated.
Three reasons why the company should not be held liable for wrongful termination
The company followed the proper procedure for termination
The decision to lay off some employees due to corporate restructuring was a decision by
the CEO and the Board members. The plan was approved, and notice was rendered to the
employees to be terminated. Notice of more than 30 days was granted. Because the termination
was not a result of the employees in action, the company offered to pay severance benefits to the
affected employees. This shows that the company followed the procedure for termination and did
not perform any illegal activities while at it; hence it cannot be held liable for wrongful
termination.
The company has a Right to Lay Off Employees Due to Restructuring to Reduce Costs of
Operation

WRONGFUL TERMINATION 4
It was not wrong for the company to opt to let go of some of its employees because of
corporate restructuring. The company operated within its mandate.
The Company is not obligated by the Law to Pay Severance Benefits
The company was not under compulsory law to offer the terminated employees severance
benefits; hence it cannot be held liable for any illegal action for failing to do so.
The position I believe was Easier to Argue and Why

It was easier to argue for the 100 employees because there was sufficient evidence
showing that the company wrongfully terminated its 100 employees. Even there was a procedure
for the termination, specific conditions were not met which makes the termination illegal. For
example, the criteria used to choose the employees to be terminated can be found to be
discriminatory.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION 5

References

FindLaw. (2018, December 6). Wrongful termination checklist. Findlaw.
https://www.findlaw.com/employment/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination-checklist.html
Legal Information Institute. (2019). Wrongful termination. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_termination
Legal Information Institute. (2019). Severance pay. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/severance_pay