Negotiation Help! I asked for $7900, they responded with $2000

[esc_oblivion]

-Resident of Montana-

I need some help interpreting the letter I received yesterday from the law firm representing my ex-employer. I also need advice about negotiation.

Namely, if I requested $7900, and they came back with $2000, which they say is a "very generous offer as the company is not responsible...", is that their final offer, or have negotiations just begun?

Brief Background:
A week ago I sent my ex-employer a seven page letter including applicable state law informing him of my intent to sue he and his company for Wrongful Termination, Defamation of Character - Slander, Invasion of Privacy, and Employment Discrimination. I suggested that to challenge me in court would virtually guarantee that the company would go under (it can't afford to have him distracted, or any of the employees wrapped up in proceedings) and suggested that I agree in writing not to sue him in return for compensation of $7,900. I gave him a week to respond before filing the suit(s).

Yesterday (the last day of the week I gave him) he hand delivered a letter from the firm which represents him which says that "the Company would be willing to pay you $2000 due to any hardships...".

In this scenario is it normal to respond with another offer (like $6000)? Or do you think based upon the following legalease that $2000 is all I'm getting and I'm lucky to be getting even that - without taking him to court?

"The Company is very confident it has a strong case against you, and your claims. Numerous witnesses are willing to give detailed testimony... The Company has documented numerous serious reprimands... the Company is very confident it would prevail on a termination for cause. However, it is willing to be practical in an effort to save both you and it time and money and move on with your respective lives. Without admitting any of your allegations, the Company would be willing to pay you $2000 due to any hardships you may have incurred from the loss of your job... This is a very generous offer as the Company is in now way responsible for your lost income, late fees, or moving expenses..."

My interpretation is 'yada yada yada, we'll pay you $2000 for a proper release, yada yada yada'. I.e. It sounds to me like pretty standard language and to be what I should expect from the opposing lawyer/firm. I do want to know if there's any weight to what I related above; should I believe any of it? I certainly believe the letter from him contains "numerous" drastic exaggerations, so I guess I just want to know what this means to a lawyer... are they scared? Do I make a counter offer? How much...? What happens now?

Thanks for any pointers y'all can provide!

Regards, Abe

 

[esc_oblivion]

1 more thing: they didn't mention the other three Suits...

You may have noticed that I said I informed them of my intent to sue them for Wrongful Termination, Defamation of Character, Invasion of Privacy, and Employment Discrimination.

However, the letter only states that they believe they "would prevail" on a "termination for cause". Their letter says nothing about the other three...

What does that mean, is this my opening for continued negotiation? Or does this indicate they are actually worried about the other three - just not the first? I think they should worry about the first as the State Unemployment Office decided in my favor...

 

[Ramoth]

Just because you're getting Unemeployment does NOT mean you have a case for any of the things you say you have a case for.

Since my psychic powers don't work on days endind in a "y", I don't know if the offer is a final one or the opening round of negotiations. Without knowing the particulars of why you think you have a case against the company, no one here can tell you if you should take the money and run, or find a lawyer and file your case.

 

[Beth3]

The company is making a nuisance offer to you. In other words, they're willing to pay you 2K to go away. You're free to counter their offer, whether restating the $7,900 (a rather odd figure to request), or something less. The risk you run is the employer simply responding by withdrawing the offer entirely and calling your bluff. "Fine. We'll see you in court."

Since you didn't include any information as to why you think you have a claim for wrongful termination, defamation of character, invasion of privacy, and employment discrimination, nobody here can advise you whether you have any legitimate basis to be threatening to sue and demanding money in the first place.

The State finding you eligible for UC benefits in no way indicates your employer has violated any laws. It simply means you are unemployed for a reason that allows benefits under your State's UC reg's.

 

[esc_oblivion]

Let me elaborate then...

Duh. I can't believe I didn't think to include *that* sort of background.

On Oct. 10, 2003 I was hired as a Marketing Specialist for an internet company. Within the first month I made some fairly normal mistakes, and received guidance from my boss on what I'd done wrong. January 10, 2004 my Boss took me into his office, praised me up and down, gave me a $.50 raise/hr (around here that's pretty good), and said he hoped to see me become the departments director.

Little more than a month later he takes me into his office and tells me he "has to let [me] go". I assume, given the tone of our conversation, and the fact that he says he has to let a few more people go later on in the day - and that this probably wouldn't have been the case if money wasn't so tight - so I assume that I'm just being laid off. Nothing wrong with that, companies have hard times, period.

A week later I get a call from my mother in law who's ticked off because she just heard from so-and-so (a friend) that I got fired *three* weeks ago (notice the inaccuracies already?) for doing all this horrible stuff, and spending tons and tons of the companies money, and not knowing what I was doing, etc. My wife set her mom straight - that it'd only been a week, and that up until just then we'd thought I'd been laid off.

I immediately recognized that if this information (be it reality to the company, or lies to me) had the potential in our relatively small town of 40,000 people to cause me some signifigant damage. In the past I've been legitimately fired for cause (which I worked hard to correct), and that never got passed around (ever). And yet this rumor makes it to my mother-in-law in a week?

I immediately video taped the chain of people back to the source of the initial information. My mother-in-law heard it from a friend of hers who works at an Accounting Firm with another gal who also works part-time at my ex-employer.

Montana is the only state in the U.S. with a Wrongful Termination addendum to the "At Will" law. Unless specified differently, it sets out a probationary period of six months. However, my employer specified three months. Emails to one of my co-workers (a friendly Director) say that, in her opinion my Boss (also the President/CEO) is the one responsible. I think her opinion holds some weight since she's the Director of the Accounting department. Up until the moment I was fired I thought I was doing a terrific job, and going places with the company.

ANYWAY, I realize that Wrongful Termination suits are hard to win in the best of circumstances, so I know that if that's all I had I would essentially have nothing. What has injured me greatly - financially and emotionally - is the byproducts of the Suspicious/Wrongful Termination. Hence, my challenges of Defamation of Character - Slander, Invasion of Privacy, and Employment Discrimination.

The Slander I think I already explained thoroughly enough (in addition to the fact I'm having an immensely difficult time finding another job - it's been 1.5 months so far).

The Invasion of Privacy because my Boss has an inherent responsibility to maintain confidential information - whether or not it is just opinion, or reality. If he discusses it with other managers then he needs to ensure that they don't further pass it along.

The Employment Discrimination because I know that money was tight, and yet he chooses to fire me rather than the other two members of the department - one a new female employee, and the other a homosexual male. In this case, just being "normal" caused me to be discriminated. The other two also had college degrees, while I do not. However, I know that education is not (yet) typically considered when it comes to discrimination.

As for the Wrongful Termination and his accusations, my response is "prove it." I don't think he would be able to in any way. If he had others testify, he would have to choose who carefully since I have documentation and email from a number of co-workers supporting my claim that I'm the victim here of his need to blame someone for his own oversight. He never documented any of the "instructional" times I had early in my employment which now he referrs to as "numerous serious reprimands." I also have a knowledge to exceed his in the marketing department and know that he's bluffing when he says he has documents from "marketing partners" supporting his claims. Everything that occurs with the marketing partners happens through a single login (used by whomever knows what it is), and as far as the marketing partners are concerned all the internet traffic to them comes from a single IP address (the company has only one).

After the above, are you guys better able to offer me "take it and run" or "ask for more" suggestion? I appreciate your trying with the limited information I initially provided.

 

[Beth3]

Take the money and run.

You do not have a claim for wrongful termination or invasion of privacy. You don't have a claim for slander either, based on what you have so far.

YOU will have to prove that a management official specifically told lies about you (or was negligent in statements that were made), that the lies were broadcast to an "audience," and that you suffered damages as a result. All you have right now is someone's opinion that the CEO *may* have made some statements about you. You don't know if that happened, what was said if it did, who it was said to, and how much "steam" anything that may have been said picked up along the way.

 

[esc_oblivion]

Thanks for the perspective!

Will do.

I appreciate your taking the time, Beth3 to wade through the massive text of my recounting.

Thanks again!

Regards, esc_oblivion

 

[cbg]

BTW, just for your future information, a wrongful termination does not mean one that is unfair, unjust, unexpected, based on incorrect or inaccurate information, or in the large majority of cases, one that violates company policy. In order to qualify as a wrongful termination, it has to have been ILLEGAL to fire you for the reason that they did.

There are two forms of wrongful termination; violation of Title VII, and violation of public policy. A Title VII violation means that "but for" your race, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristic , you would not have been fired. A public policy violation is one in which you were fired BECAUSE you utilized or applied for a right or benefit that is protected under the law.

Edited to include note: Okay, I missed until after I hit "submit" that you are in Montana, where the definition is somewhat broader. However, even in Montana, the reason you were given by your boss does not qualify as a wrongful termination, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove that there was actually another, illegal reason over and above the one he gave you.

 

[stephenk]

"I suggested that to challenge me in court would virtually guarantee that the company would go under (it can't afford to have him distracted, or any of the employees wrapped up in proceedings) and suggested that I agree in writing not to sue him in return for compensation of $7,900."

Do you really believe that your lawsuit would make the company go under? If yes, you should have then demanded more than $7900.